Have points costs for ships.

[emperorpenguin]

Maybe one out of 10 Times with luck and a Centauri Player who don't knows what he is doing.

Actually, that could make for an interesting matchup. 5 Prefect Vs. 5 Light Cruisers. Light Cruiser has Hull 5 as opossed to 6, but can block some of the damage with GEG 2. Has less total Hull/Crew and shorter range on the Beam, but does gain precise. It also has more turns which means that a tactic of blowing past the battle line and attacking the flanks while they struggle to turn could be very effective. Definitely one to try out.

the Pirv did just that versus my beam heavy Centauri fleet at Gaelcon, people underestimate just how valuable good maneuvrability and speed actually are!

 

[Target]

Don't think a Drazi fleet would, but missle based fleets would. Minbari fleet would either a complete hiding for either depending on how the stealth rolls went. No exp with Drakh so can''t say

 

[Hans Olo]

Maybe one out of 10 Times with luck and a Centauri Player who don't knows what he is doing.

Actually, that could make for an interesting matchup. 5 Prefect Vs. 5 Light Cruisers. Light Cruiser has Hull 5 as opossed to 6, but can block some of the damage with GEG 2. Has less total Hull/Crew and shorter range on the Beam, but does gain precise. It also has more turns which means that a tactic of blowing past the battle line and attacking the flanks while they struggle to turn could be very effective. Definitely one to try out.

Yes the light Cruiser does hurt, but is easier to take out then a heavy raider. In fact its one of the easier ships to deal with in the Drakh fleet and the Prefect has plenty of everything that really hurts the Drakh.... lots of Double damage weapons.
If you position your fleet properly there is no struggle to turn around while the Prefects protect each other.

 

[DrSeltsam]

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.

It's granularity that's the issue. The PL system requires the ships to be altered to fit to resolve balance issues, a points system would just need an adjustment in the value of the ship.

Both adjustments subjectively of course.

But subjective pointing systems work better than mathematically correct costing systems, because at the end of the day, on balance, gut feeling will tell you that something is War/500 points worth overall, rather than giving a discount as "someone" can evade your Stealth out there, thereby devaluing Stealth when in reality you're never going to be fighting those units.

Calculated points systems break and can easily be munchkined for homebrew units - subjectivity tells you what its actually worth, not what a quirk in the maths says its worth.

So you want to say it's better to trust your "feeling" even when the statistic tells you it is a 50% chance ?

In one game you have problems with stealth ( low rolls ) an in the next it's no problem at all ( only high rolls ). Is stealth now too good, not useable or just right ?

It's nothing more than a variable "Dodge" roll. Im sure my gut will tell me something different than yours to you ... mine is telling something like Pizza

 

[Hans Olo]

Im sure my gut will tell me something different than yours to you ... mine is telling something like Pizza

Crap your gut definitely tells you better things than mine is telling me, where is my Pizza? I only had some rice with vegetables.
But I second you, your guts shouldn't be responsible for what is balanced and what is not.
At the end it all comes down to statistics.

 

[emperorpenguin]

.
But I second you, your guts shouldn't be responsible for what is balanced and what is not.
At the end it all comes down to statistics.

and how do you statistically tell the worth of a 1/45 turn or 2/45?

statistics is only PART of playtesting and game balance not the whole story

 

[Obsidian]

the Pirv did just that versus my beam heavy Centauri fleet at Gaelcon, people underestimate just how valuable good maneuvrability and speed actually are!

Out of curiosity, what was the makeup of each fleet?

If you position your fleet properly there is no struggle to turn around while the Prefects protect each other.

Right, and if the Drakh player sees you lining up in a nice formation like that he'll just scoot to the sides and attack the outer edges while attempting to flank. It's all Point/Counter point though really which is what would make this an interesting fight. It isn't totally about the stats, manuevering and tactical thinking very much factor into the end result.

I do have to say though that after running a few shots through the combat sim, Hull 5 with GEG 2 isn't anywhere near as good as Hull 6 unfortunately. The Hull 5 ship simply takes more hits and with more hits comes the chance for more criticals which is what ultimately decides the game...

 

[emperorpenguin]

the Pirv did just that versus my beam heavy Centauri fleet at Gaelcon, people underestimate just how valuable good maneuvrability and speed actually are!

Out of curiosity, what was the makeup of each fleet?..

I had a Primus, Centurion, Sulust and Altarian

He had a Heavy Cruiser and 3 light cruisers iirc

He was able to quickly get around my beam ships to their flanks and as I was forced to turn it broke up my attack. I beat him but only just, the non beam heavy Altarian was vital because it could hit the Drakh while the beams were out of arc

 

[Hans Olo]

.
But I second you, your guts shouldn't be responsible for what is balanced and what is not.
At the end it all comes down to statistics.

and how do you statistically tell the worth of a 1/45 turn or 2/45?

statistics is only PART of playtesting and game balance not the whole story

That's true but anybody's guts wont tell us the whole balancing story either.

And giving an answer to the question how valuable a 2/45 turn is in about 5 minutes ore even a day is impossible.
That requires a long time of testing and comparing, that's nothing somebody can do at home in a few weeks with a piece of paper and two or three pencils.
So I do respect everyone who's job is to figure out the value of a game stat. And of course everybody who does it voluntary because it is a huge amount of work.

 

[emperorpenguin]

that's fair enough

 

[Celisasu]

And good speed and maneuverability mean more for certain ships than others. Having good turns when you have the exact same weapon systems in every arc doesn't mean the same thing when as having good turns when you have all your weapons in a single arc. And speed means more for ships with short range weapons obviously. Long range ships actually want lower speeds so they can stay away and snipe longer.

 

[frobisher]

So you want to say it's better to trust your "feeling" even when the statistic tells you it is a 50% chance ?

My gut would also be telling me that the situation was 50-50 - Hello Baseline units Some things are obvious...

In one game you have problems with stealth ( low rolls ) an in the next it's no problem at all ( only high rolls ). Is stealth now too good, not useable or just right ?

It's nothing more than a variable "Dodge" roll. Im sure my gut will tell me something different than yours to you ... mine is telling something like Pizza

However, no one points cost is correct for every unit in every situation if you have a game like ACtA (and B5W it must be said) where ships have systems that have ignore or mitigate certain opposing systems that not all ships carry.

A ship with Beams will fair better against an Interceptor protected ship than one that has interceptible weapons, but not all ships have Interceptors. Does that unit have two costs now? Or more (one for each differing Interceptor value out there)..? Then how would you combine such values..?

How ever, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck and of equal value to most arbitrary ducks. Those Mallards will beat the crap out of it though but overall a fleet of Mongooses won't differentiate between the breeds of duck - they're just ducks

 

[DrSeltsam]

.
But I second you, your guts shouldn't be responsible for what is balanced and what is not.
At the end it all comes down to statistics.

and how do you statistically tell the worth of a 1/45 turn or 2/45?

statistics is only PART of playtesting and game balance not the whole story

Sure statistics are not everthing but for every D6 you roll you can use it.

Regarding turn :
It increases the chance that you can use the weapons in the different arc's more often as the manouvering of your opponent can be countered. Each turn increases the total tactical value of a ship ( or all of its weapons if you like to say ) and/or it increases the chance that you can out-manouver your opponent so that he can not use his weapons to full effect.

The statistic tells you how often you will hit a hull 4, 5 or 6 ship with weapon xyz and special trait Bob and how much damage and criticals you will produce. This is probability and will never chance.
Maybe one game will be "lucky" for your regarding D6 rolls but the next could be "catastrophic" ... or you can just blame your dice for being some lazy $%§ :roll:

 

[DrSeltsam]

A ship with Beams will fair better against an Interceptor protected ship than one that has interceptible weapons, but not all ships have Interceptors. Does that unit have two costs now? Or more (one for each differing Interceptor value out there)..? Then how would you combine such values..?

That's true ... ( my last game with EA against Drakh was showing this very good :shock: ).

As i mentioned before i would suggest not to rate the ship but the interceptor system itself.
# How usefull is a interceptor ( how many weapons can be intercepted ) ?
# What can counter it / make it useless ?
# How often will it "save" a hit ( statistics here ) ?
This will always be the same. Only after this i would try to give interceptors a value / cost .

The same could be done for weapons ...
For example Beams.
# Can it be countered / stopped ? ( Yes )
# What/Who many systems can counter it ( 2 = Dodge and Stealth )
# Can system reduced its damage effect ? ( Yes, 2 = GEG and Adaptive Armour )

All of these are options which a system/weapon can have or not. The balancing is now to give each a point value that corresponds with its game effect.

Sure this is not a complete check - only a fast try - so there are for sure things/options missing ...

 

[Hash]

and how do you statistically tell the worth of a 1/45 turn or 2/45?

I don't necessarily disagree with EP's general argument here but this comment riles me a little as in general, I think the level of statistical analysis conducted on ACTA ships in general is basic. Very basic.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, this is just a game after all, but don't make the mistake that there isn't a way of applying a scientific method to determining the worth of each aspect of a ship's parameters in terms of performance in game.

There are a multitude of analytical techniques that may be applied to objectively ascertain the "worth" of turns, speed, weaponry range etc. We can even model decision making processes, validating an assessment methodology we employ from observation, historical evidence and computer simulation as well as the basic rules of the game.

The problem not that it can't be done, but it is labour intensive, requires a level of expertise that is expensive to hire and unlikely to be found in your average volunteer gamer (no offence intended!), and of course needs a considerable amount of time (some of the playtesters do have lives!)....ok maybe a trifle OTT for ACTA...just want to stress I believe that sort of thing can be done if you spend enough money

That massive tangent aside, I'm not convinced of the benefit of a points value per ship but am reading the thread with an open mind - please continue

 

[Triggy]

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.

Yep, both have the same granularity, it's just what is adjusted to fit the other.

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.

I wasn't insulted. You'd know for sure if I was. Constructive criticism is a good thing. And I understand that everyone wants to improve the game - I do to, that's why I'm a playtester.

There is a lot of work goes into balancing even with PLs. Personally I love the simplicity of the PL system, but understand the appeal of points.

I too love the simplicity of the PL system and the advantages it enforces in terms of fleet balance. I'm happy with the system and would like for it to continue.

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.

It's granularity that's the issue. The PL system requires the ships to be altered to fit to resolve balance issues, a points system would just need an adjustment in the value of the ship.

Both adjustments subjectively of course.

But subjective pointing systems work better than mathematically correct costing systems, because at the end of the day, on balance, gut feeling will tell you that something is War/500 points worth overall, rather than giving a discount as "someone" can evade your Stealth out there, thereby devaluing Stealth when in reality you're never going to be fighting those units.

Calculated points systems break and can easily be munchkined for homebrew units - subjectivity tells you what its actually worth, not what a quirk in the maths says its worth.

A pointed out set of fleets wouldn't have a "build it yourself" system. Even if a mathematical formula is used to determine a ship's value, there's no need to let this formula generate homebrew ships.

One thing that showed in the quick points evaluation that Triggy and i done was the prefect was far superior to the Centurion. The points were fairly similar just divide mine 3 and it's roughly what triggy had.That took me 10 mins to do.
Speed and turns aren't really worth that much as usually you start facing each other. Speed just means you get closer quicker to the enemies guns. The Whitestar manueverbility it more the ability to be able to target whatever it likes. This game is more about guns than anything else. Usually who has the biggest/most wins.

Speed and manoeuvrability are actually worth quite a lot but different amounts to different ships. With a good formula, this can still be accounted for (mine does take into acount all of these factors and more).

A ship with Beams will fair better against an Interceptor protected ship than one that has interceptible weapons, but not all ships have Interceptors. Does that unit have two costs now? Or more (one for each differing Interceptor value out there)..? Then how would you combine such values..?

That's true ... ( my last game with EA against Drakh was showing this very good :shock: ).

As i mentioned before i would suggest not to rate the ship but the interceptor system itself.
# How usefull is a interceptor ( how many weapons can be intercepted ) ?
# What can counter it / make it useless ?
# How often will it "save" a hit ( statistics here ) ?
This will always be the same. Only after this i would try to give interceptors a value / cost .

The same could be done for weapons ...
For example Beams.
# Can it be countered / stopped ? ( Yes )
# What/Who many systems can counter it ( 2 = Dodge and Stealth )
# Can system reduced its damage effect ? ( Yes, 2 = GEG and Adaptive Armour )

All of these are options which a system/weapon can have or not. The balancing is now to give each a point value that corresponds with its game effect.

Sure this is not a complete check - only a fast try - so there are for sure things/options missing ...

It's not that easy for some systems such as GEG to calculate but once you analyse the overall spread of damage an average PL can inflict per weapon system, the overall prevalence of beam and mini-beam weaponry, etc. it becomes easier or at least possible. Again, with fine tuning, it's not too hard to come up with a complicated formula to evaluate the ships.

 

[Hash]

...it's not too hard to come up with a complicated formula to evaluate the ships.

Probably just me, but I'd be quite interested in seeing that formula and your assumptions - have you validated this against any historical data?

 

[Triggy]

...it's not too hard to come up with a complicated formula to evaluate the ships.

Probably just me, but I'd be quite interested in seeing that formula and your assumptions - have you validated this against any historical data?

It's several bits of formulae that sort of combine, quite hard to put down but I'll try (I ignore some more minor factors for some types of ship to save time)....

As for validating it, it pretty much always comes up with the over and underpowered ships and so on as being just about where they're supposed to be.

OK, on with the formula for shooting:

Calculate each weapon system separately and add them together at the end:

1) Average Hits (vs Hull 5)
AD x2/3 if SAP, x1/2 if AP, x1/3 if normal, x1/6 if Weak
Twin-Linked: AD x8/9 if SAP, x3/4 if AP, x5/9 if normal, x11/36 if Weak
Beam: AD x17/5 if SAP, x7/10 if AP, x2/5 if normal, x1/5 if Weak

2) Arc
F = x1
S/P = x5/9
A = x1/9
T = x5/4 (don't count this if the ship is already Super Manoeuvrable)
B = x(1/([End calculation of this formula]+2)+0.5)

3) Traits
Slow-Loading = x5/9
Anti-Fighter = x7/6

4) Range
x((Range+[Half Speed if Fighter])/(Range+[Half Speed if Fighter]+8)+1/18(if Mini-Beam))

5) Interceptors
x12/13 if interceptable

6) Multipliers
Double Damage = x13/7
Triple Damage = x19/7
Precise = x11/7
Precise, Double Damage = x 20/7
Precise, Triple Damage = x 29/7
E-mine = x 5/7
Masters of Destruction = x5/4

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Am I the only one that thinks the PL system is anything but simple when you get into high-level games and start getting half a dozen ships per point?

 

[Triggy]

A Ship's Toughness now:

1) Baseline Hit Points
Damage x1.1
Higher value of Damagex1.1 and Crew /1.1
Use the higher remaining value for all further calculations

2) Self-Repair
Add average Self-Repair score x [Turns of Survival] (see chart below)

Turns of Survival = [End calculation of this formula iterated a few times]/[Average damage inflicted per turn by a ship of the same PL] (see chart below)

Average Damage Per Turn:
Patrol = 3.9
Skirmish = 8.0
Raid = 12.5
Battle = 25.8
War = 50.4
Armageddon = 79.2

3) Adaptive Armour
x2 if present

4) Station/Ancient Damage
x3.5 if takes d6 Damage per hit

5) Gravitic Energy Grid
5/7x([Damage per shot, see chart below]x12/13(if interceptors present)/[Dodge Factor] (see below)/[Hull Factor](see below)/([Damage per shot]x12/13(if interceptors present)/[Dodge Factor]/[Hull Factor]-GEG)+2/7x[Damage per shot]

Average Damage Per Shot (use PL below the ship being calculated):
Patrol = 2.6
Skirmish = 3.6
Raid = 5.6
Battle = 8.6
War = 12.6
Armageddon = 15.9

6) Interceptors
Int1 = +3.00
Int2 = +4.00
Int3 = +4.67
Int4 = +5.10
Int5 = +5.40
Int6 = +5.67
Int7 = +5.83
Int8 = +5.93
Multiply running total by 13/12

7) Dodge
Dodge 2+ = x6
Dodge 3+ = x3
Dodge 4+ = x2
Dodge 5+ = x3/2
Dodge 6+ = x6/5

8) Stealth
Stealth 2+ = x3
Stealth 3+ = x2
Stealth 4+ = x3/2
Stealth 5+ = x6/5
Stealth 6+ = x13/12

9) Hull
Hull 6 = x3/2
Hull 5 = x1
Hull 4 = x2/3
Hull 3 = x4/9

10) Manoeuvrability
Super Manoeuvrable = x5/4
2/90 Turns = x13/12