Points or PL system to pick fleets?

[Valen is my name]

I was looking at some other topics saying that some ships at a PL level are not equal to other ships at the same PL level, and that some ships seem to be at the wrong PL level, but are there because something bigger has to go at a higher PL level, so it gets pushed down one...

So i was wondering, wouldnt it be better to get rid of the PL system and replace it with a points system, like is used in other games, some of which mongoose have devised themselves. It would solve both these problems in my mind, as that way if two ships that are currently at the same PL level were not quite equal (as claimed about the omega earlier, or the best and worst PL ships) then their points value could be slightly different to make up for his. A points system seems to work in plenty of other games, and with 2e coming out then maybe the changes could be made for that, so you dont have to try to get everyone to change at the same time, instead just have it as a modification for 2e which everyones going to get anyway.

 

[Flogus]

PL system was originally simple. But with the high PL breakdown, it become a nightmare to build a fleet. Worse : according the way of 'breakdown', a same fleet can have different values.

With PL system, ships must enter one of the 6 existing 'moulds' of power (from Patrol to Armageddon). A Points system is much more flexible and do not end with the same ships on the table.
Ka'Tan is much more played (understand 'powerfull') than a G'Karith for the same PL ? With the PL system, there is only 2 ways to solve that : undergunned the Ka'Toc to make it match the others Skirmish ships, of upgunned it to match Raid ships.
With a Points system, a third way is open, without having to modify the profiles : increase the point value of the ship.

PL system was due to be simple, but it is not it now.
The Points system is as simple as an addition.

 

[tneva82]

One flawed system or other flawed system...Neither will ever produce truly balanced fleets...There will always be arquments.

PL system however has advantage point system does not have: Ships cost variable amount depending on PL. You can't model that without giving 6 point costs for every ship in point system...

Why go for trouble of change for just as flawed system that does not provide as many features...

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I favour a "traditional" points system, personally, for the reasons given above. The existence of the PL system imposes the "advantage" that ships have a variable value depending on the level of the game. Other games don't do this; in BFG a single frigate is a single frigate and costs the same whether you play 500 points or 5,000 points battles.

 

[Valen is my name]

PL system however has advantage point system does not have: Ships cost variable amount depending on PL. You can't model that without giving 6 point costs for every ship in point system...

yes you can. At th moment a raid ship currently costs one raid point. so in a 5 point raid, that one raid point ship takes up 1/5 of your total points. However, if its a 5 point battle then that 1 raid point ship takes up 1/10 of your fleet allocation points. The ship always costs one raid point, but you can get varying amounts of them depending on the pl level. So i understand whay you mean when you say they cost a variable amount, but they cost the same, just you have to work out raid points into battle point etc, which can get a bit confusing.

However, its much easier with a points system.
Say that the raid ship (say a white star) instead of being a raid point, costs 20 points. (the figures can change, this is just an example) so, a 5 point raid game, would be equal to about 100 points, and one white star would still cost 1/5 of your total. Now a 5 battle point raid would be roughly equal to 200 points, so that single white star would be 1/10 of your points, but you wouldnt need to try to work out how many raid points go into a battle point, instead its how many 20s go into 200, which is a lot more simple.

This points system bit may not sound like it changes much, but the main difference is when you get two ships that are both currently the same pl level, but are not equal (as shown by the best and worst ships at a given pl topic) so while a good raid for example (a white star) costs 20 points, a not so good ship thats currently raid would instead cost say 17 points.

It would probably be better if the numbers were bigger, eg white star is 200 points rather then 20, so the difference makes more of a difference, but i really believe it would make ACTA better, and as for your no gains comment, it would stop people complaining about ships at the same pl level are not equals, which is a big problem

 

[Lord David the Denied]

On the other hand, people would complain that XYZ points value is too high/low for any given ship...

"My Vorchan is shite, it should be 150 instead of 200 points, then it'd be fair."

"The White Star is broken! It's way too cheap for what it can do. Make it 300 points!"

That said, I agree with Valen. A point system allows more fine tuning. Ships could buy refits from the campaign table, for example, for a small increase in points. Likewise, admirals (something we know is coming) would be able to buy abilities for simple points values. It works nicely for BFG, and it would work just as well for ACtA.

 

[Valen is my name]

there will always be arguements, but on the whole i think a points system would work better, and since most other games use it it would be easier to get new people interested, and like has already been said, the pl system was simple, but is now too complicated (especially when you get a variant thats better than the original hull but costs the same).

wonder if lbh has voted yet, or what he thinks on this, asi know he plays VaS, so it would be good if he could compare the two systems, as ive never played VaS. I have played a bit of warhammer but i thought it would be better to compare VaS as mongoose have devised the values for it, so we could see how mongoose managed to do (no offence intended to anyone at mongoose)

 

[hegemon]

I one thing that interests me about ACTA and what makes me want to get it is it doesn't have an arbitray(sp?) point system, i like the simplicity of it.

just because its a PL system doesnt mean ships cnt have variable costs, eg say an Omega is worth one battle a marathon cud be worth one battle and 2 patrol/raid/etc.

 

[Valen is my name]

but the pl system isnt that simple anymore, and saying a ships worth a raid AND a skirmish point at the same time will just make it even more so

 

[Lord David the Denied]

wonder if lbh has voted yet, or what he thinks on this, asi know he plays VaS, so it would be good if he could compare the two systems, as ive never played VaS. I have played a bit of warhammer but i thought it would be better to compare VaS as mongoose have devised the values for it, so we could see how mongoose managed to do (no offence intended to anyone at mongoose)

VaS uses the PL system too, dude. The breakdowns are different, that's all.

I one thing that interests me about ACTA and what makes me want to get it is it doesn't have an arbitray(sp?) point system, i like the simplicity of it.

just because its a PL system doesnt mean ships cnt have variable costs, eg say an Omega is worth one battle a marathon cud be worth one battle and 2 patrol/raid/etc.

It is an arbitrary value. Saying a Vorchan is a skirmish ship and a Primus is a battle ship is totally arbitary. AoG didn't establish those values, Mongoose did. Matt or one of the other designers plucked those ideas from the air.

As has been pointed out, with a points system the cost of a ship is subject to a much finer variation, and adding a few points or taking a few points away can rebalance a ship when in the PL system it has to be restatted. Even if you move a ship up or down the PL scale it will beed to be revised to reflect its new position.

 

[Valen is my name]

oh sorry i thought VaS was points too, is battlefield evo? does it work?

 

[hegemon]

buts it not as arbitray as this ship has this much so its worth this many.

to be honest I dnt see how it is not simple anymore all ships are worth the same, Just because one battle ship is undergunned compared to another battle ship doesn't necessarily mean either is better than the other.

 

[Valen is my name]

if a ship has less weapons overall, less damage and crew points and less or no fighters compared to another, then there is something wrong, and the only way to make it right without changing the stats is to use a points system

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Sorry, but PLs are one of the sacred cows of CTA. We have had this discussion many, many times (both on the forums and in the office), and there are solid reasons for not only having PLs in the game in the first place, but keeping them too.

It is worth noting that CTA was once a points-based system (during its early design days) but it quickly became apparent that this was leading to 'clumped' areas where ships had little difference - hence the PLs.

It is also worth pointing out that not all ships will be 'equal', as in having an even chance of destroying another ship of the same PL in a duel. As a fleet based game, CTA is balanced within the fleet lists rather than individual ships (there are exceptions to this, as there are several 'benchmark' ships, the centre point being the Hyperion and, of course, those ships specifcially designed for duelling). What you have are fleets that, all else being equal, will be able to fight each other on a level playing field at any given PL.

Of course, certain ships in your fleet will suit some enemies better than others, and some tactics (even some players) better than others.

Hope this helps to explain our thinking behind the decision!

 

[MongooseMatt]

Matt or one of the other designers plucked those ideas from the air.

There was a little bit more to it than that

 

[Flogus]

Sorry, but PLs are one of the sacred cows of CTA. We have had this discussion many, many times (both on the forums and in the office), and there are solid reasons for not only having PLs in the game in the first place, but keeping them too.

Ok with that.
But please, make it simple in ACTA#2. The original system was simple. But with the breakdown system in Armageddon, I can not quickly explain that to a beginner.

Only the 1st column on the 7th page of Armageddon (fleet allocation points cost) and a note "you can replace a ship by a ship any PL lower", would be fine (even if points value system is my personal preference).

 

[Chernobyl]

A long time ago I recommended a "bonus" point system...

it becomes blatantly clear that "no all raid ships are created equal"
Would you favor a white star over a hyperion? probably. how about an Olympus gunship?

In any case, the intent was to keep the priority level system the same, but make adjustments that have to equal out.

an Omega destroyer might be Battle, but a Omega Pulse Destroyer might be Battle (-5)

all points in a particular PL would have to equal 0, or some minimum value provided there is only one ship bought at that PL.

You'd still have the Priority breakdown, but it would avoid situations where someone finds a ship that is powerful in swarms (similiar to the sagg's previous situation). The old sagg might have been a skirmish +10, which would really limit the numbers you can take at once. you'd have to take a bunch of skirmish -5's to compensate.

It allows the (forced) diversification of ships without bogging down points equivalents too much. It also makes it "OK" for a ship to be considered more powerful within a PL. you wouldn't have to keep seeing new stats all the time, just an additional bonus number if its too weak or too powerful.

Chernobyl

 

[Lord David the Denied]

There was a little bit more to it than that

Just a figure of speech, Matt... :wink:

 

[katadder]

I like the PL system. means you can throw a quick 5pt fleet together with out any work. good for last inute games at clubs. instead of having to balance points.

 

[Ripple]

Katadder, that last was somewhat true before Arm. Now, things are getting more complicated, and with Admirals coming there is not a good arguement to be made that pl is faster than points unless math is hard for you.

There are virtually as many options and as many balancing acts to be done as some of the worst point system games. Do I break to skirmish and then again to patrol, or do I take a raid and skip skirmish, wait I want that admiral so I need a raid slot somewhere...and depending on race you have to start deciding with the missile options, fighter type etc.

That said...its not changing...so we're getting the complexity we hoped to avoid and without the benefit of the fine tuning you get with a point system. Hopefully it won't hold the system back.

Ripple