Points or PL system to pick fleets?

[Commador Q]

am i the only person who thinks the new priority system is easier than the old one?

it's more mathamaticle when splitting over multiple levels: 1 battle point = 2 raid, and since 1 raid = 2 skermish, 1 battle point also equals 1 raid, and 2 skermish

otherwise it follows a doubling pattern for higher PL ships and an additive pattern for lower PL ships.

Also the PL system does change things based on the PL of the scenario relative to the PL of the ships involved. For example a 5 point raid battle, is comperable to a 10 point battle, except for some races who can have 1 FAP of allies, so 5 point battle and 10 point raid could be very different fleets.

also because the PL progression doesn't move the same way up as it does down, you gain less from taking the smallest type of ship you can. For example in a point system a 100 point fleet could be 20 5 point ships, whereas a 200 point fleet would be 40. However with the PL system, the same doubling effect occurs when the point value is doubled, but a 5 point battle fleet is at most 15 skermish ships, while a 5 point battle is at most 20 skermish ships.

 

[Ripple]

Not sure I agree with you Commander...

the downward breakdowns are 2, 3, 6, 12...so aside from the one hitch at the two steps down it is virtually the same as going up, ie doubling every step. Add in that it is the rare exception for the at PL ship to be better than the 2 to 24 (the extreme case admittedly) broken down points and I fail to see how this encourages larger ships at all. It has escalated the number of ships on the table, increased the length of games and made patrol ships more valuable (they rarely appeared before). Some of that is good, some not so good.

I agree with you that the point system is much more intuitive than the SFoS version with the odd breakdowns made available then, but point systems are very intuitive as well, we can all count. The argument against points has always been that it took too long to build a fleet. Under the new pl breakdowns you have many good options...most of them in fairly extensive breakdowns...and more coming with Admirals...then there are weapons variants and fighter swaps... Or to put it simply you have almost as many options as most point systems, so I find it harder to understand the advantage of the pl system.

The Arm breakdowns are easier to understand...but seemed to lose the real advantages of the system, that it encouraged fleets to use ships of a certain level and and only a few breakdowns made sense to use.

Ripple

 

[Abraxas]

I don't know why we have this discussion. MP is reluctant to change this...

But my concern is about this vote. The comments reflect the wish for a change over... but the vote does not. We see some people that want to change the PL and untlimately complicating it (in my opinion)...

I see the same 2 or 3 people that want to keep it as a PL system and a whole host of people that want it changed to a point system... or at least arguing that a PL system is easier.

What gives? If you like the PL system, tell us...

 

[Chernobyl]

I like it, but I'd like to "tweak" it :lol:

 

[tneva82]

This Pl system doesn´t work. You see in Tournements ever the same shipstyp.

Sounds same as with tournaments with point system...

 

[Locutus9956]

Well from where Im standing most people seem to be saying (as I am) that they want a PL system but want to see changes made to that PL system rather than leave it as it is or go to points, so there should really be a third vote option, to use PL but modify it a bit (which I believe alot of people would vote for (I myself havent voted as I dont really want either of the choices offered)

 

[Hash]

I agree with most of what Ripple said but would add I think the PL system is viable as long as you limit the number of FAP. We tend to play every bout as 5pt Raid because it's convenient but I actually think the system works a lot better at 1pt Armageddon. I guess however it gets to a point where a points system IS actually easier and more intuitive...after all I don't think the PL system achieves much other than to actively encourage swarm fleets (i.e. buying 2 ships of the level below or re-splitting points to get as many ships as possible)

I'm not sure really, I used to be a big fan of the PL system as it seemed so much simpler...now? It just seems far, far too easy to abuse and all it needs is one broken ship....10 Saggs anyone? I'm not convinced however that a points system really offers much of an advantage however and I don't want to see the nightmare of points updates that would come in Signs and Portents after the issue of every new ship as would inevitably happen after ships were released to the player community.

At the end of the day we're looking for a balanced game that's quick and easy to pick up for newbies and veterans alike and I think the PL system (or if you like limited points system) has the edge over a full points system common in other games. Or, to paraphrase Churchill, it has been said that priority level mechanic is the worst form of fleet selection method except all the others that have been tried.

 

[katadder]

1pt armageddon works.
for those that say this doesnt force big ships - it does.
best way to break that down is one war, 1 battle, 1raid, 1 skirmish, 2 patrol.
this is because you can only break down each point once.
so you break and armageddon ship down to 2 war,you can only break one of those war further, and so on and so on.
yes you coudl skip a few and go for 12 skirmish ships but they will be up against some big ships there.

 

[Locutus9956]

I disagree. Best way to break it down for nearly every race, is 1 War, 1 Battle, 1 Raid and 2 Skirmish.

Most patrol ships suck

 

[Burger]

It depends on your fleet, really.

 

[katadder]

well 2 corvans is nice for the centauri.
the EA get their nice hermes missile transports.
abbai get their Tiracas.
there are som good patrol ships.
if narn however then yeah you would stop at skirmish probably. same with minbari as you have nothing below skirmish although i would probably stop at raid with minbos.

 

[Burger]

Shadows and Vorlons would stop at Raid too, most likely

 

[Valen is my name]

because the nial has to have enough room for a pilot, bigger engines than a WW2 fighter had

Again? Why? How you know Minbari's couldn't invent smaller engines for Nials? We are talking about race that has been flying in space for over 1000 years...

Look how we managed to compress computers in what? 40 years? Quite an improvement...

(and to back me up if i put my revell starfury model next to a spitfire or hurricane of the same scale it dwarfs it)

Starfury happens to be human technology based :roll:. Humans have "bit" less experience as space faring race as Minbaris...

BTW. I wouldn't trust shows CGI as scale measurements...Based on that distances between ships in fight would be laughable compared to what they would have to be...

I know we can make computers smaller but it would take more than a laptop (even a 2250 minbari one) to get everything in a white star to work.
And computers are one thing, engines are another. Look at ship engines, they haven't been drastically reduced in size over the last 50 years, theres a limit to how small you can make an engine. For instance i dont remember ever hearing about new nuclear reactors being noticably smaller than the old ones, (yes i know that a white star has different engines to a nuclear reactor) and look at submarines. As the technology has become more sophisticated the hulls have had to get bigger. Besides, you need a lot more stuff to get a white star to move in space without ripping itself apart than you do to get an aircraft carrier to move without sinking. a ship has to stop itself from sinking, a white star has to deal with no air being in sace, and then dealing with the pressure of an atmosphere when it goes into a planets atmosphere. It will be bigger than an aircraft carrier, and nials are about the same size as starfuries, so my previous point stands.

As for size of ships and fighters:

White star length (apparently) 260m roughly
Invincible class aircraft carrier 206 m (210m for ark royal)

W.S. fighters 12 nials according to some
Invincible aircraft 8 sea harriers, 12 sea kings (though some are now merlins)

so if nials are bigger than sea harriers, which they would be if they were real, it makes sense for a WS to carry less fighters than a carrier, and dont forget a WS would need more supplies than a carrier (even the minbari cant rival the Royal Navy's Fleet Auxiliary) and theres a limit to how much you can compress supplies. plus the WS needs life support - carrier doesnt, and WS engines are very likely to be bigger than carriers


In summary, A White Star IS bigger than a carrier, but can hold LESS fighters.

 

[Valen is my name]

Well from where Im standing most people seem to be saying (as I am) that they want a PL system but want to see changes made to that PL system rather than leave it as it is or go to points, so there should really be a third vote option, to use PL but modify it a bit (which I believe alot of people would vote for (I myself havent voted as I dont really want either of the choices offered)

im going to start a new poll, with the extra option, this forum can just be used ofr the arguement about WS and nial sizes.

 

[Burger]

so if nials are bigger than sea harriers, which they would be if they were real

Err, fatal flaw in logic there
How do you know how big a Nial is, have you seen a real one??

In fact http://www.merzo.net/ puts a White Star at 475m, and a Nial at 21m.

 

[Silvereye]

ACTA (1.0) Book 2 puts the Nial at 22.23 metres and weighing 63 tons.

 

[Greg Smith]

Invincible aircraft 8 sea harriers, 12 sea kings

Wow. I didn't know modern carriers carried so few aircraft.

Ah, the Nimitz-class can carry 82. That's more like it.

 

[H]

Thats the Royal navy working on the Governments budgets for you.
think the 2 new carriers carry 50 or so aircraft each

 

[Tank]

Now now Greg don't mock the RN, they're getting real boats soon :lol:

 

[katadder]

Thats the Royal navy working on the Governments budgets for you.
think the 2 new carriers carry 50 or so aircraft each

whats point in carrying that many? fleet air arm wont be able to fill one, let alone 2 of them.