Have points costs for ships.

[DrSeltsam]

This is all really academic - how do you compare
Thats exactly the point - you don't. There is no "i think" in this process. The value is calculated by a mathematical formula and not decided by a person.

In a reasonable point based system something like the Sagittarius( http://chburger.brinkster.net/armageddon/ViewShip.asp?ShipID=54 ) and the Neroon would not be possible. The point value would show that the ship is too strong/too weak for its suggested level.

So what mathematical formula decides what is the points value of Adaptive Armour? And what is the value of 1AD SAP/TD/P/B compared to 1AD traitless? Somebody has to decide those things.

Hi Burger and welcome to the discussion

Sure somebody ( Hi Mongosse <wave emote> ) has to decide, test, adapt, test again, give beta lists to playtester, work on feedback and publish "what is the cost for x,y,z".

But what it the alternative ?
I maybe wrong but the PL system is only based on the "i think" factor - so how can it be wrong if the PL system is good ?

 

[Burger]

Hi Burger and welcome to the discussion

Thanks

Sure somebody ( Hi Mongosse <wave emote> ) has to decide, test, adapt, test again, give beta lists to playtester, work on feedback and publish "what is the cost for x,y,z".

But what it the alternative ?
I maybe wrong but the PL system is only based on the "i think" factor - so how can it be wrong if the PL system is good ?

So how can the points system be any better than the PL system if it is just as subjective? The process you describe for assigning points is exactly the process used to decide PL. A points system woul dbe just as inaccurate, and a lot more complicated.

 

[DrSeltsam]

But that's the problem in the PL system !
You get 2 skirmish Sag ( fictitiously cost of 150pt per ship = 300pt ) while your opponent gets 2 skirmish ship ( fictitiously cost of 100 per ship = 200pt ) or 1 raid ship ( fictitiously cost 150pt per ship= 150pt ). In the PL system you always get more than your opponents gets. Only "your feeling" can tell that there is something wrong. In point based system it would be shown that there is something wrong.

So long as the points value of every ship is balanced. How do you do that, as Alex keeps asking but never gets answered, how do you decide how many points a ship is worth without being subjective? If Interceptors 1 is worth 10 points, how much is GEG 1 worth?

Öhhhh ... by testing ?
See how it works against the different system and effectives the game system. Something that should also happen in the PL system.

Im sorry but if anyone expects to see a full point list for all available stuff in 5 minutes than this complete discussion wouldn't be here at all - this would already be solved

Why does the point value of every ship has to be balanced ? If ship A is 150pt and ship B is worth 100pt it is clear the you can decide to fight with a handicape or take something worth 50 pt to compensate.

 

[DrSeltsam]

Sure, but my point is, why go to the extent of making a messy point system, when all you need to do to fix the current system is move around a few traits and change a few no.s of AD?

It is very clear at the moment which ships are considered broken, either too strong or too weak. It's also very easy to see how they are broken (too many AD, too strong a hull, etc. etc.).

It is therefore pretty easy to fix them, without getting in to very messy formulae which may seriously offer bias to some fleets and not others (a la the full thrust system).

I would also support this idea if it would help / work !

But it seems that as soon as somebody starts a new issue regarding a fix for a ship to adjust it the "stop whining and learn how to play" response is only seconds away.
You would still have the "i have the feeling the ship is not right" response from people who want to get a little bit more out of their favourite ship/race.

 

[Burger]

Why does the point value of every ship has to be balanced ? If ship A is 150pt and ship B is worth 100pt it is clear the you can decide to fight with a handicape or take something worth 50 pt to compensate.

By balanced I don't mean "the same". Sure some can be 50, some can be 100 and some can be 150. But 2x 150 should be an even match for 3x 100; so who is to say that ship A is worth 100 pts and ship B is worth 150 pts? Whatever amount of testing etc is done, it will still be subjective. So might as well stick with the current PL system which is also just as subjective, but a lot simpler.

it seems that as soon as somebody starts a new issue regarding a fix for a ship to adjust it the "stop whining and learn how to play" response is only seconds away.

Its a long time since I saw a response like that.

 

[Alexb83]

There does need to be some level of common sense applied, I think. Delving into mathematics is just going to make it too complicated.

Mongoose currently offers variants at the same PL without parity - take a Sharlin vs. Sharkaan for instance (it's a good example).

The Sharkaan has lost the following compared to the basic model:

6 AD of 30 inch range SAP DD Precise beam
4 AD of Port AP MB
4 AD of Starboard AP MB
2 AD of Aft Minibeam
2 Nial Flights
1 Flyer flight

It has only regained:

4 AD of 36 inch range SAP TD Precise Beam

Common sense should tell you that it's lost far more than it's gained.
Edit: It's also lost 2 troops into the bargain.

 

[DrSeltsam]

Why does the point value of every ship has to be balanced ? If ship A is 150pt and ship B is worth 100pt it is clear the you can decide to fight with a handicape or take something worth 50 pt to compensate.

By balanced I don't mean "the same". Sure some can be 50, some can be 100 and some can be 150. But 2x 150 should be an even match for 3x 100; so who is to say that ship A is worth 100 pts and ship B is worth 150 pts? Whatever amount of testing etc is done, it will still be subjective. So might as well stick with the current PL system which is also just as subjective, but a lot simpler.

it seems that as soon as somebody starts a new issue regarding a fix for a ship to adjust it the "stop whining and learn how to play" response is only seconds away.

Its a long time since I saw a response like that.

As i said to Alexb83 im fine with the PL system if someone gets it balanced .

It still have the feeling that a Drazi Battlehawk or EA Explorer or Narn Rongoth are no match for a Centauri Prefect. To be sarcastic i would even go so far to bet my money, my car, the house, the food-for-dog-for-the-next-2-weeks and the name of my first child on the outcome of such a match.
All the ships are 1 Raid choice.

The PL system is fine when you choice your ship - but the design could be based on a more complex method to get the ship in the same PL level "closer together". Wouldn't this help ?
Still a simple and fast way to select your ship.

 

[Greg Smith]

[Sure somebody ( Hi Mongosse <wave emote> ) has to decide, test, adapt, test again, give beta lists to playtester, work on feedback and publish "what is the cost for x,y,z".

But what it the alternative ?
I maybe wrong but the PL system is only based on the "i think" factor - so how can it be wrong if the PL system is good ?

We playtesters are currently working on the seventh iteration of rules and fleets for the 2nd edition. There is no 'I think' factor in balancing ships in PLs, there is lots of testing and discussion.

 

[Alexb83]

Value isn't simply based on their combat effectiveness, though - it comes down to a combination of the damage they can put out, damage they can soak up, no. of fighters they can contribute and any fleet bonuses they donate (like the +1 command from the explorer).

You need to consider the role of the ship. On the whole it's pretty well balanced - specialist ships are sufficiently specialised. Where the game normally falls down is shortchanging people on slight variants on the same hull, or by offering throwaway ships (like the Troligan) which aren't real alternatives to the solid offerings.

Edit: In response to the Prefect vs. Rongoth etc. post.

 

[Reaverman]

Why does the point value of every ship has to be balanced ? If ship A is 150pt and ship B is worth 100pt it is clear the you can decide to fight with a handicape or take something worth 50 pt to compensate.

By balanced I don't mean "the same". Sure some can be 50, some can be 100 and some can be 150. But 2x 150 should be an even match for 3x 100; so who is to say that ship A is worth 100 pts and ship B is worth 150 pts? Whatever amount of testing etc is done, it will still be subjective. So might as well stick with the current PL system which is also just as subjective, but a lot simpler.

it seems that as soon as somebody starts a new issue regarding a fix for a ship to adjust it the "stop whining and learn how to play" response is only seconds away.

Its a long time since I saw a response like that.

Agreed, otherwise we are going to have posts like "Should a Sharlin be worth [xx] points", and then endless arguments about it. PL's are usefull, becuase at certain levels they can dictate the numebr of large ships on the table. If a Sharlin was worth 200 points, how so you dictate if you dont want one in 1000 point battle. In the PL system you can, you select the scenario for Skirmish, and redice the FAPs. Also, how do you integrate the point system into a campaign. Currently its easy for players, for try and force the battle in their favour.

 

[Alexb83]

In my Full Thrust games, annoyingly enough this usually comes down to the guy who owns the table saying 'nothing above a battlecruiser'. It does tend to bias the game heavily towards those with stronger ships at lower points values.

It's also for practical reasons, in that there are a few players in our groups who just love to play with their big shiny SDNs and nothing else...

 

[TenaciousB]

The PL system is still far from perfect - its simply grouping a bunch of ships together, whether they be weaker or stronger than their other race counterparts. At least the benefits of a point system would show you (theoretically, of course :wink: ), their actual values.

Perhaps for 2nd edition, Mongoose could at least TRY to work on a points-based system - there's bound to be a few guys with a degree in maths or something. :lol:

Once both systems have been fully tested and evaluated by the playtesters, then a victor would be found once and for all.

 

[DrSeltsam]

[Sure somebody ( Hi Mongosse <wave emote> ) has to decide, test, adapt, test again, give beta lists to playtester, work on feedback and publish "what is the cost for x,y,z".

But what it the alternative ?
I maybe wrong but the PL system is only based on the "i think" factor - so how can it be wrong if the PL system is good ?

We playtesters are currently working on the seventh iteration of rules and fleets for the 2nd edition. There is no 'I think' factor in balancing ships in PLs, there is lots of testing and discussion.

Hi Greg

I apologize if my post was insulting to you or anyone else working as a playtester !
Im sure that there is a lot of testing and discussion for new ship and changes to existing ship by many people before it is published. And i hope you understand that i also only try to give a positive feedback to a game system i really enjoy. I only see some flaws in the current system and so i try to carry out my contribution to improve it.

 

[TenaciousB]

Agreed, otherwise we are going to have posts like "Should a Sharlin be worth [xx] points", and then endless arguments about it.

Reminiscent of all the "Saggi's are too powerful" whining that has been going on for a while, methinks. You're never going to please everyone, but just dismissing a points system is just foolish.

It may be worthwhile (and I think someone else suggested it) to try and implement both systems simultaneously. Keep the PL system, but still have points for the ships, then people can make their own minds up before they play - do they play a 5 point raid, or a 1000 point game? The choice is theirs! :lol:

 

[Balance]

Perhaps for 2nd edition, Mongoose could at least TRY to work on a points-based system - there's bound to be a few guys with a degree in maths or something. :lol:

But what would it gain them? Especially since they'd be essentially scrapping a lot of other potential testing of, say, new toys for the Dilgar to essentially retest everything multiple times.

The way i see it the PL system vs. a points system is a matter of what is 'nailed down.' In a points system, it's easiest to make a ship stat block that 'fits' the canon, model, demands of marketing etc. then adjust points until it's balanced. In the PL system it's somewhat opposite... moving PLs for a design is a big decision, so it's often easier to modify the stats a bit. For a fleet-based game like this, I don't mind that as a weapon system does represent multiple weapons that may not be visible on the model.

 

[TenaciousB]

But what would it gain them? Especially since they'd be essentially scrapping a lot of other potential testing of, say, new toys for the Dilgar to essentially retest everything multiple times.

No fair - using my love of the Dilgar against my argument! Red card, that man!!!! :lol:

Seriously, though, I'm not saying the PL system should be scrapped or anything, but I just feel that a points based approach would be better in terms of game balance. I know it wouldn't be perfect, but I reckon it would be a damn sight more balanced than it is at the minute.

And like I say, compromise might be the answer.

 

[DrSeltsam]

Value isn't simply based on their combat effectiveness, though - it comes down to a combination of the damage they can put out, damage they can soak up, no. of fighters they can contribute and any fleet bonuses they donate (like the +1 command from the explorer).

You need to consider the role of the ship. On the whole it's pretty well balanced - specialist ships are sufficiently specialised. Where the game normally falls down is shortchanging people on slight variants on the same hull, or by offering throwaway ships (like the Troligan) which aren't real alternatives to the solid offerings.

Edit: In response to the Prefect vs. Rongoth etc. post.

I may be ignorant but where is the role for a Explorer against a Prefect ... except for opening Jump Point to flee ...

Even with the command bonus you are only equal with the Centauri, the offensive potential is ... in a visiblly area to be polite, your main weapon range is equal to the secondary weapon system of the Centauri, your slower, hull is 2 points lower. You have more crew and much more damage, thats true - but ...
1.) you really need it
2.) it will not stop the beam from doing massive damage long before you can do anything at all - if you can do anything at all when you reach weapon range

Im sorry but i can't see how this is balanced :wink:
I still like the Explorer and in our current campaign i even have 2 in my fleet ... but i will never use one in a fight if not forced to - it's only for "fluff" reason.
:roll:

 

[Burger]

Explorers are a pretty bad example, since they are not meant to be combat ships. They are best used in specific scenarios IMO.

Better example is a Prefect vs a Rongoth

 

[DrSeltsam]

Ok , maybe it is a bad example ... but it still is a example :wink:

Both are Raid level ships. I just wanted to show a really extreme example where you have a choice ( the EA Explorer ) the will cost the same fleet ressource as a full combat vessel ( Centauri Prefect ) without adding a real value to the match in the respect of fighting potential. If the Explorer would be cheaper ( maybe Skirmish ? ) it would be something different. But this could lead to some issues with other Skirmish ships ... it's really hard to work with the PL system when changing a level without changing the stats at the same time.

What is your opinion ?

 

[Hans Olo]

Explorers are a pretty bad example, since they are not meant to be combat ships. They are best used in specific scenarios IMO.

Better example is a Prefect vs a Rongoth

Yes that's definitely the better example, but the outcome would be the same!
Anyway what Dr. Seltsam tries to show is that there are a lot of ships that don't stand a chance against other ships within they're priority level and the question is why do they share the same level?
I could imagine a system that uses priority levels and point values so that a really good raid ship costs more, point wise than a poor raid choice.

Another idea: Prefect= 1 Raid+ 1 Skirmish, well don't know if this would work but you could still use it with the point breakdown system and it would show that a Prefect has more potential than a Rongoth.( well got the idea while writing this post so could as well be total crap.)

@ Burger
So I'm curious in which scenario is the explorer of any use?