Motion to Change the beam trait.
- Thread starter Geekybiker
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Nomad said:
ha! that'd be my target number of 6 you can't roll!
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Triggy said:
There's no reason why game balance equals bland either, chess is balanced and still the most popular wargame in the world after thousands of years!
Commador Q
Mongoose
i'd like to make a few points regarding a veriety of the discussions in this thread.
1. regarding the focus on one off vs campaigne games.
just because most games are one offs doesn't mean every ship should be designed soly for one offs, tournament or otherwise. one of the best things about acta in my opinion is that you can play either one offs or a campaigne. so what if hull 4 ships are rarely used in one offs. if they feture prominately in campaignes than they still have a reason to exist. similarly it's not a failing in the rule system if some ships are not usable against certain types of oponents. everything should have strengths and weeknesses, and as long as there are situations in which any given ship is potentaly usefull it does not nesesarily need to be made more powerfull. i would hate to see mongoose cater soly to the one off/tourny jocks by rewriting the rules and ship stats such that every ship is viable in a 5 point raid one off, as it would cripple the campaigne system. and in my opinion there is plenty of veriety available in the curent tourny lists.
2. regarding numericle values as a means of balance.
a point system for determining balance is a good idea to a point. the problem is that a game such as acta is to complex to reduce soly to numericle statistics. this is because some abilitys have better synergy than others (for example stealth and doge) seperately thos abilities are much less powerfull than they are when combined. additionaly, to some degree the power of a ship is determined by what role it plays in the fleet. for example, the SFOS White Star is over powered for a raid level ship, but becomes less so (during campaigne play at least) given that it is one of only 3 ships that the ISA can field routienly. as such an ISA campaigne player will be forced to use White Stars in situations where they are out numbered and against oponents several times their size. that is a downfall that cannot be acounted for effectivly in a purely statistical analasys.
so in short, while a numerical statisticle analasys is beneficial for gaining a ballpark estimate of how powerfull a ship is, it has it's limits, and should never be used exclusivly. one play test is worth 100 numerical analasies IMO.
3. regarding the written rules as infalable
of coarse the rules are falable, but there is a differnce between the rules being bad and there being a little room for impruvment. for example: stealth. the stealth mechanics are not unbalanced as they are, but they could (in theory at least) be better. now, that doesn't mean the have to (or even should) be changed, as the change has to be towards a better system for it to be worthwhile. as such the new system needs to maintain the curent game balance while eliminating the "anoyance factor" from the mechanics.
right now acta has a very good rules system, so changes to that system should not be made lightly and the consequences to every aspect of play should be concidered.
1. regarding the focus on one off vs campaigne games.
just because most games are one offs doesn't mean every ship should be designed soly for one offs, tournament or otherwise. one of the best things about acta in my opinion is that you can play either one offs or a campaigne. so what if hull 4 ships are rarely used in one offs. if they feture prominately in campaignes than they still have a reason to exist. similarly it's not a failing in the rule system if some ships are not usable against certain types of oponents. everything should have strengths and weeknesses, and as long as there are situations in which any given ship is potentaly usefull it does not nesesarily need to be made more powerfull. i would hate to see mongoose cater soly to the one off/tourny jocks by rewriting the rules and ship stats such that every ship is viable in a 5 point raid one off, as it would cripple the campaigne system. and in my opinion there is plenty of veriety available in the curent tourny lists.
2. regarding numericle values as a means of balance.
a point system for determining balance is a good idea to a point. the problem is that a game such as acta is to complex to reduce soly to numericle statistics. this is because some abilitys have better synergy than others (for example stealth and doge) seperately thos abilities are much less powerfull than they are when combined. additionaly, to some degree the power of a ship is determined by what role it plays in the fleet. for example, the SFOS White Star is over powered for a raid level ship, but becomes less so (during campaigne play at least) given that it is one of only 3 ships that the ISA can field routienly. as such an ISA campaigne player will be forced to use White Stars in situations where they are out numbered and against oponents several times their size. that is a downfall that cannot be acounted for effectivly in a purely statistical analasys.
so in short, while a numerical statisticle analasys is beneficial for gaining a ballpark estimate of how powerfull a ship is, it has it's limits, and should never be used exclusivly. one play test is worth 100 numerical analasies IMO.
3. regarding the written rules as infalable
of coarse the rules are falable, but there is a differnce between the rules being bad and there being a little room for impruvment. for example: stealth. the stealth mechanics are not unbalanced as they are, but they could (in theory at least) be better. now, that doesn't mean the have to (or even should) be changed, as the change has to be towards a better system for it to be worthwhile. as such the new system needs to maintain the curent game balance while eliminating the "anoyance factor" from the mechanics.
right now acta has a very good rules system, so changes to that system should not be made lightly and the consequences to every aspect of play should be concidered.
emperorpenguin said:
And there is no reason to change the rules, because a minority of the gamers are having problems playing the game too. I suppose if you played napoleonics, and used the French. You'd insist on the rules being re-written so the Brits could not use rocket, rifles, and give them shorter range cannon.
Look at the votes, its clear that most people are happy with the game. If you want to change how it plays, go for it, and set it as your 'House Rule'. See how your local players take to it, and listen to their comments!
Lord Aldades said:
Thank you
It annoys me that GW have now gone as far as turning their best game system (LotR) from a lovely, fun, unbalanced scenario-based system into a tournament points match "line up two armies and duke it out to see who is the better player" system so you can have a clear "winner" and "loser"
(actually I have to admit that is a good thing for the very reasons I want the reverse done for ACTA)The priority level system in ACTA makes it even worse - not only are sides balanced, but ships within each PL band have to be balanced as well to prevent one being "better" than another... well here's some news - all ships are not built equal. All the PL system does is introduce a reason for artificially tweaking ships and distance them from their "real" fictional counterparts.
Okay, rant over. I know theres fans of both styles of play, and accept that I cannot convert "tournament" gamers to playing "scenario"-style. It'd be nice however if games designers also recognised there's two (actually three) major groups of us out here and designed games accordingly to support both...
One group wants a game with precise balancing so they can see who the better player is.
The other wants "simulation"-style games that can give a more realistic battle (and is split over whether they want scenarios so they get a battle faught with the resources each side happened to be able to bring to bear at that point in time, or whether to still use balanced sides but a far more granualar series of ships to play with that haven't been bumped up or down in ability to fit into artificial priority levels)
So how about a nice new bookfor ACTA that provides alternate scenario-style play with unbalanced sides and new fleet lists giving a more accurate representation of that ship's abilities while sacrificing game balance to do so? Add in points costs and you also cover those players that want a balanced game in terms of sides but not artifically balanced ships.
Someone is bound to say "if you don't like the game, there's plenty of others out there." There are not plenty of others set in the B5 universe though - some of us like the idea of ACTA, but not the specific implementation. The game rules (after sides are selected) are pretty nicely done, the argument is over how ships are statted out and how sides are selected.
It pains me to say it (especially after my opening comments), but what GW are doing for LotR is exactly the right thing - opening up alternative styles of play to allow more people to enjoy the game the way they want to. Some of us can even enjoy the occasional game playing our "non-native" style, too....
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I'm with you, dude. I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing people moan that ships aren't balanced or that this ship or that ship is broken. It's a wargame, and war isn't balanced. Never has been, never will be. There's an old military axiom that goes "if you find yourself in a fair fight, something has gone wrong."
A wargame not only needs to be warry, it needs to be fun as well. So, people cry out for "balance" and say that without it a game is no fun.
So, in ACtA terms, lets imagine how the game would be if we forgot about "balance." Take the Earth-Minbari war, for instance. The most unbalanced conflict in B5 history. The Minbari were grossly superior to EarthForce. In In the Beginning we see a Hyperion destroyed by two nuetron laser beams in about one second. So, in a game of EA vs Minbari, the EA should be badly disadvantaged. So, people cry out, why should anyone play such a game as the EA?
Because it's fun to be the underdog sometimes. Because when your crippled Hyperion rams a Sharlin and destroys it you cheer outrageously. Because when you do win against a superior opponent it's that much more satisfying. You do it for the challenge.
If you want to play precisely balanced, competitive tournaments, then as far as I'm concerned you ought to be playing chess, or at the least, a wargame between relatively-even sides. B5 history is frought with one-sided battles from the Dilgar War to the Centauri Republic's expansion to the Shadow War.
Would you expect an ancient world wargame to "balance" the Romans against the Gauls? Or the Macedonians against the Greeks? In reality those wars were badly one-sided, so why artificially change things? How about a World War 2 game that "balances" German tanks against British or American ones? Or gives the Polish cavalry a fighting chance against German machine guns and Panzers?
Anyway, that's my rant. Take it or leave it.
A wargame not only needs to be warry, it needs to be fun as well. So, people cry out for "balance" and say that without it a game is no fun.
So, in ACtA terms, lets imagine how the game would be if we forgot about "balance." Take the Earth-Minbari war, for instance. The most unbalanced conflict in B5 history. The Minbari were grossly superior to EarthForce. In In the Beginning we see a Hyperion destroyed by two nuetron laser beams in about one second. So, in a game of EA vs Minbari, the EA should be badly disadvantaged. So, people cry out, why should anyone play such a game as the EA?
Because it's fun to be the underdog sometimes. Because when your crippled Hyperion rams a Sharlin and destroys it you cheer outrageously. Because when you do win against a superior opponent it's that much more satisfying. You do it for the challenge.
If you want to play precisely balanced, competitive tournaments, then as far as I'm concerned you ought to be playing chess, or at the least, a wargame between relatively-even sides. B5 history is frought with one-sided battles from the Dilgar War to the Centauri Republic's expansion to the Shadow War.
Would you expect an ancient world wargame to "balance" the Romans against the Gauls? Or the Macedonians against the Greeks? In reality those wars were badly one-sided, so why artificially change things? How about a World War 2 game that "balances" German tanks against British or American ones? Or gives the Polish cavalry a fighting chance against German machine guns and Panzers?
Anyway, that's my rant. Take it or leave it.
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Reaverman said:
is it feeding time for the troll again?
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Lord David the Denied said:
No rules set I've seen gives Roman players automatic victory over Gauls!
Were it not for Alexander's charge at the Theban sacred band Macedon might have lost
Most wargames I've played have superior numbers of Shermans
Nobody will play this game if we stick to "history" and the EA can't defeat Minbari
Equal points fleets/armies are part of wargaming
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I was referring to Philip's crushing of the Greeks, not Alexander.
I didn't say the EA shouldn't be able to beat the Minbari. I said they should be disadvantaged. Just like the Gauls trying to beat the Romans or British tanks trying to defeat German ones. Numbers don't mean diddly if your gun can't penetrate their armour at battlefield range and they can blow you away with a single shot.
Just like the Minbari vs EarthForce, really...
I didn't say the EA shouldn't be able to beat the Minbari. I said they should be disadvantaged. Just like the Gauls trying to beat the Romans or British tanks trying to defeat German ones. Numbers don't mean diddly if your gun can't penetrate their armour at battlefield range and they can blow you away with a single shot.
Just like the Minbari vs EarthForce, really...
But you can accomplish imbalance in games by choosing to have unequal fleets (e.g. an "historical" scenario). You can't as easily make an unbalanced fleet list fair to all users in an open game. That's the point of game balance. If you make comparisons of ships the Minbari are vastly superior to the EA ships of the same timeframe, however, in an open game you get fewer of them to balance the game. If you want to reenact the Battle of the Line as you suggest then simply take two Sharlins for every other Earth ship. Just ignore the values of the ships and let me know if you have a fun game. (BTW this could actually work if the victory conditions are something other than who gets the most kills)
In any game where you can have pickup one off games you will have players striving to find an edge somewhere. If you make the fleet lists balanced then this edge has to come from tactics and strategy rather than simply taking the better ships (with little or no thought required). I would like to see alternative scenarios used too that emphasise fleet flexibility and use uneven fleet sizes however I still will campaign vigorously for as fair a matchup as possible in most circumstances.
In any game where you can have pickup one off games you will have players striving to find an edge somewhere. If you make the fleet lists balanced then this edge has to come from tactics and strategy rather than simply taking the better ships (with little or no thought required). I would like to see alternative scenarios used too that emphasise fleet flexibility and use uneven fleet sizes however I still will campaign vigorously for as fair a matchup as possible in most circumstances.
emperorpenguin said:
Thats it EP, resort to insults as you do in all your threads, whenever you cant answer a reasonable response.
BTW At least I dont have to be put in a 'High Chair', and can feed myself with a knife and fork...oh and I have very good table manners (something you are seriously lacking)
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Reaverman said:emperorpenguin said:
Thats it EP, resort to insults as you do in all your threads, whenever you cant answer a reasonable response.
BTW At least I dont have to be put in a 'High Chair', and can feed myself with a knife and fork...oh and I have very good table manners (something you are seriously lacking)
So why out of ALL the posts did you feel like jumping on mine? You've been harassing me for days and I've had PMs from two other forum users supporting me that you've done similar to them. I asked you to stop and you won't.
A troll is someone on a forum who just jumps out and attacks posters
Had you bothered reading my posts you'd know I don't favour changing beams so that's a stupid thing to say. I am with the majority on this one...
And no Napoleonics game is unbalanced to allow French to always defeat say Austrians, game balance is a feature of ALL good games.
I just think it's telling you attacked me and not Triggy when he shares my view, it's clear these things are personal with you and as I warned you Reaverman, one more time and I'd take my support evidence from other members and go to the Mods, well you had your chance
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Lord David the Denied said:
Numbers were precisely how Allied tanks did beat Panthers and Tigers, a common tactic was for two tanks to flank the thing while the others tried to not get hit by keeping it occupied...
Philip crushed the Greeks because of Alexander's vital contribution at Chaeronea but that's not the point!
The point is that stealth does disadvantage anyone fighting Minbari
emperorpenguin said:Reaverman said:emperorpenguin said:
Thats it EP, resort to insults as you do in all your threads, whenever you cant answer a reasonable response.
BTW At least I dont have to be put in a 'High Chair', and can feed myself with a knife and fork...oh and I have very good table manners (something you are seriously lacking)
A troll is someone on a forum who just jumps out and attacks posters
Does this make Tank a Troll, since he also answered to your post. Or Burger, or LBH. I was only giving constructive criticism, to the post about chess. Tank, also replied and I dont see you torching him. Maybe if you read the posts, and stop trying to make something out of nothing, there would not be a problem. You are overeacting mate, on a grand scale. I'm not the one insulting people, or ranting like an irate baby missing his rattle.
Feel free to mail the mods, I have done nothing wrong. I only made a passive comment, and you flew off the handle..again. If you run to the mod, everytime a forum member has disagreed with you. The only thing that will be done, is that the mod is going to delete your post, because you are just spamming the hell out of his inbox.
Like I said before, you are on a forum. Unless people directly insult you, they are entitled to an opinion. You have insulted 75% on this forum, because they are happy to play the rules as they are. You accused them of having closed minds, and overeacting to your suggestions. But I dont see anyone running off, and telling the mods they've been insulted.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Jumping in here... who are the mods around here?
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Tank said:
Personally I always thought the b;ack side was 'broken', since they automatically win initiative and make the white side move first.
Emporere Penguin said:
Maybe I'm not a pro-active playtester, but I don't think the problem is a major one.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
One of my regular gaming buddies criticized by previous analysis and not being in reference to the base hull of the game, 5. Oops, I agree! Renormalizing for a baseline hull of 5 gives the full result spread of:
..........................Hull 4....Hull5....Hull 6.......H4/H6.....H4/H5
Light Pulse............0.50.....0.33.....0.16.........3.125......1.504
Twin Array............0.56.....0.31.....0.31.........1.836......1.836
Energy Pulsar.......0.75......0.56.....0.31.........2.419......1.339
Matter Cannon......0.66......0.50.....0.33.........2.000.....1.333
Grav Lance...........0.83......0.66.....0.50........1.666......1.250
Battle Laser..........1.77......1.13.....0.70.........2.529 ....1.566
Aha! Here it is! The expected damage curve has an inflection point, something I hadn't expected...
Yes, it seems the Battle Laser is a statistical outlier on 5 vs. 4. We all knew about the Twin Array's weak property becoming part of the equation, as Hull 5 vs. Hull 6 look identical, but here, the SAP beam actually passes the Light Pulse. Not by a lot, mind you, but I expected the SAP beam to be at about 1.39 or so. I double checked by the H4 and H5 numbers.
I'm not yet willing to go all the way to beam caps, although I'll consider 'em. Well ...hmm. No. It just doesn't feel right. And I understand the argument about why incorporating profile really doesn't add much ... it's basically the same as giving everyone some kind of Dodge, and giving other ships Dodge rerolls. Perhaps we just simply have to say some H4 ships need to either:
-- Drop in Priority and be retweaked
-- Get more hits of damage
-- Get some guns
-- Get drop a bit of damage and get Dodge 6.
Not all need this. If your role is to be scout support or are a Minbari, you're probably already doing well as a Scout and/or your main defense is stealth. (Except my Jashakar
). The ships that folks seem to be talking about are:
-- Some Tethys
-- Sho'Kos/Sho'Kar
-- G'Karith/G'Sten (I doubt this belongs on the list of problem ships, it's just that the rest of the Narn Skirmish choices are so darn good.)
-- Kutai
-- Haven
-- Amar (Well, ok, this is bad for so, so many reasons.)
-- Tiraca (Not so sure about this one yet.)
-- Sunhawk/Guardhawk/Darkhawk
-- Xarr
-- Xorr
-- Drakh Fast Destroyer
-- Drakh Carrier
-- Drakh Mothership
I see enough Strike Carriers, Hermes, Darkeners, Olympii, Xixx, and Drakh Raiders to make me think that this isn't an issue for these. The Tourney Vorlon list solved the problem of the Transport.
What seems to be the threshold? For skirmish H4's it's all about the Damage, baby:
Considered Good to Go:
Olympus: 28/32
Darkener: 22/26
Xixx: 18/20.
Light Raider: 17 -- (include Dodge 4) -- > 34/34(!) .. and they still have a GEG
Heavy Raider: 18 -- (include Dodge 5) -- > 27/27 .. and they still have a GEG
Maybe Considered Playable(?):
G'Karith/G'Sten: 24/28
Strike Carrier: 32/54(!!!)
Considered Short:
Kutai: 10/12 --(include Dodge 5) --> 15/18.
Xorr: 18/20.
Darkhawk: 14/16.
What a dropoff! The Xixx is the odd one of the lot, as it can easily maintain very long ranges for a while with SM and range-30 torpedoes, but even that isn't a lock. Other ships have solved for the problem with Hull/Pseudo-Hull; consider the massive size of the Drakh at Skirmish when Dodge-Adjusted! The Darkener gets let off light with only 22, as it bristles with long-range weaponry for Skirmish-level. Otherwise, 28 to 32 seems to be the call.
Is it right -- consider the damage ratio when using the Battle Laser beam efficiency ratio from the top of the post:
28 / 1.556 = 17.99
.... right in line for Hull 5 Skirmish stuff (like my Ochliavitas and the Artemis). Heavier is about 32:
32 / 1.556 = 20.56
... which gives your K'Toc and K'Tans!
Take from this line of reasoning what you will.
I'll work on Patrol ships later.
..........................Hull 4....Hull5....Hull 6.......H4/H6.....H4/H5
Light Pulse............0.50.....0.33.....0.16.........3.125......1.504
Twin Array............0.56.....0.31.....0.31.........1.836......1.836
Energy Pulsar.......0.75......0.56.....0.31.........2.419......1.339
Matter Cannon......0.66......0.50.....0.33.........2.000.....1.333
Grav Lance...........0.83......0.66.....0.50........1.666......1.250
Battle Laser..........1.77......1.13.....0.70.........2.529 ....1.566
Aha! Here it is! The expected damage curve has an inflection point, something I hadn't expected...
Yes, it seems the Battle Laser is a statistical outlier on 5 vs. 4. We all knew about the Twin Array's weak property becoming part of the equation, as Hull 5 vs. Hull 6 look identical, but here, the SAP beam actually passes the Light Pulse. Not by a lot, mind you, but I expected the SAP beam to be at about 1.39 or so. I double checked by the H4 and H5 numbers.
I'm not yet willing to go all the way to beam caps, although I'll consider 'em. Well ...hmm. No. It just doesn't feel right. And I understand the argument about why incorporating profile really doesn't add much ... it's basically the same as giving everyone some kind of Dodge, and giving other ships Dodge rerolls. Perhaps we just simply have to say some H4 ships need to either:
-- Drop in Priority and be retweaked
-- Get more hits of damage
-- Get some guns
-- Get drop a bit of damage and get Dodge 6.
Not all need this. If your role is to be scout support or are a Minbari, you're probably already doing well as a Scout and/or your main defense is stealth. (Except my Jashakar
). The ships that folks seem to be talking about are:-- Some Tethys
-- Sho'Kos/Sho'Kar
-- G'Karith/G'Sten (I doubt this belongs on the list of problem ships, it's just that the rest of the Narn Skirmish choices are so darn good.)
-- Kutai
-- Haven
-- Amar (Well, ok, this is bad for so, so many reasons.)
-- Tiraca (Not so sure about this one yet.)
-- Sunhawk/Guardhawk/Darkhawk
-- Xarr
-- Xorr
-- Drakh Fast Destroyer
-- Drakh Carrier
-- Drakh Mothership
I see enough Strike Carriers, Hermes, Darkeners, Olympii, Xixx, and Drakh Raiders to make me think that this isn't an issue for these. The Tourney Vorlon list solved the problem of the Transport.
What seems to be the threshold? For skirmish H4's it's all about the Damage, baby:
Considered Good to Go:
Olympus: 28/32
Darkener: 22/26
Xixx: 18/20.
Light Raider: 17 -- (include Dodge 4) -- > 34/34(!) .. and they still have a GEG
Heavy Raider: 18 -- (include Dodge 5) -- > 27/27 .. and they still have a GEG
Maybe Considered Playable(?):
G'Karith/G'Sten: 24/28
Strike Carrier: 32/54(!!!)
Considered Short:
Kutai: 10/12 --(include Dodge 5) --> 15/18.
Xorr: 18/20.
Darkhawk: 14/16.
What a dropoff! The Xixx is the odd one of the lot, as it can easily maintain very long ranges for a while with SM and range-30 torpedoes, but even that isn't a lock. Other ships have solved for the problem with Hull/Pseudo-Hull; consider the massive size of the Drakh at Skirmish when Dodge-Adjusted! The Darkener gets let off light with only 22, as it bristles with long-range weaponry for Skirmish-level. Otherwise, 28 to 32 seems to be the call.
Is it right -- consider the damage ratio when using the Battle Laser beam efficiency ratio from the top of the post:
28 / 1.556 = 17.99
.... right in line for Hull 5 Skirmish stuff (like my Ochliavitas and the Artemis). Heavier is about 32:
32 / 1.556 = 20.56
... which gives your K'Toc and K'Tans!
Take from this line of reasoning what you will.
I'll work on Patrol ships later.
Similar threads
