Points or PL system to pick fleets?
- Thread starter Valen is my name
- Start date
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Balance said:
4 flights isn't enough for you!? :shock:
though it should be 6 grumble, grumble....
Ok so you guys don't agree that the Omega is 'undercosted', no problem you're probably right, still it doesn't (necessarily) make the concept any less worthy.
Balance - the basic idea, of providing a "bonus" for selecting a particular choice, has a lot of potential I think and may add a little extra flavour to the game. I personally think it would be a good way of complementing the PL system however and, incidentally, is effectively the "battlegroup" idea (or at least a lower scale version of it) that was mooted previously.
Course it sparks the endless debate of what should accompany what other ship
Ultimately, though it does have potential, this may be something best suited to individual player preference (i.e. a house rule) and not something Mongoose should necessarily impose as rules on the game...which should remain simple IMO.
Balance - the basic idea, of providing a "bonus" for selecting a particular choice, has a lot of potential I think and may add a little extra flavour to the game. I personally think it would be a good way of complementing the PL system however and, incidentally, is effectively the "battlegroup" idea (or at least a lower scale version of it) that was mooted previously.
Course it sparks the endless debate of what should accompany what other ship
Ultimately, though it does have potential, this may be something best suited to individual player preference (i.e. a house rule) and not something Mongoose should necessarily impose as rules on the game...which should remain simple IMO.Valen is my name
Mongoose
i get the point about you cant comapre two ships to make it all fair, but some fleets are better in nearly every respect, how is that fair? look at the brakari, they have about 2 good ships and thats it!
captainsmirk
Mongoose
And they get a whooping (unless occumpanied by other races) just about every time they appear in the show...
Nick
Nick
See... I'm of the opinion that no amount of fixing is going to solve a problem with powergaming. Juggling around ship stats and rules one in awhile is fine and dandy to us ordinary players who play the game for grins. Those kinds of players are going to change up their fleet lists just because they want to try something new.
Powergaming's underlying problem is with the player, not the game system. The people who break games gravitate towards what they perceive as the most powerful combination to beat people down with, regardless of the game. These sorts are overly competitive jerks whom I wouldn't want to play a game of checkers with.
So my fix for the broken ships is this: don't play with bad gamers.
Powergaming's underlying problem is with the player, not the game system. The people who break games gravitate towards what they perceive as the most powerful combination to beat people down with, regardless of the game. These sorts are overly competitive jerks whom I wouldn't want to play a game of checkers with.
So my fix for the broken ships is this: don't play with bad gamers.
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
Powergaming is always going to be a problem, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to balance the units we have for this game. Kicking beardy cheese-players in the nadgers is always a stand-by option, of course...
I was thinking that they should add a rarity/support level to the ships and then you could assign games a rarity level along with the priority level. The primary “power gaming” methods tend to center around monochromatic fleets and I think it would be fairly easy to identify the ships that are potentially abusive and assign a higher rarity level to them. This makes it easy to level the field and leaves things open to personal taste. Sure Prefects (Perfects?) are top raid level ships, but if they have a high rarity you won’t be able to build an entire fleet of them in tournaments with a mid-range rarity limit. With this system campaign play would not be affected and the added complexity of fleet building can be left up to the players or tournament organizers. I personally like some of the fleet planning/balancing aspects of the game and a system like this might force choices that would ultimately cause a larger number of ships to come into use. Again the assignment is up to the players, so games could have unlimited rarity or rarity zero (only the most basic ships available) as desired.
-Humbaba
-Humbaba
Lord David the Denied said:
You then come down to what classes as power gaming? If you take 1 tertius does that mean you are power gaming.... does it make a difference if its 1 terius in a 4 point raid, 5 point battle or a 10 point war? Where do you draw the line?
Recently there has been a change of players in the group I play ACTA with (actually I am really the only one left of the original group) and suddenly there is a big change in what is considered cheesy and power gaming.
I really like the idea of bringing a rarity value inot the PL system, where some ships have a rarity value that limits their use, I would make 1 default rarity value, and then a specail rarity for some ships that is individual to that ship.
I also think you might need some different rarity rules for buying ships in campaigns, maybe a rare patrol costs 1 extra R&R, skirmish 2, raid 4, battle 6, war 8 and armagedon 10. Then say that only every 5th ship bought can be a rare. OR you could say that Rare ships cost twice as much too repair, making them off putting that way.
verdantgreen
Mongoose
The forces that you get for one FAP should generally be of equivalent power in the same fleet list. One problem I have is how very few Armageddon choices are worth two war choices and how many war choices are inferior to two battle choices.
I'm not sayin that the high PL ships should be buffed-up but that they should be just as powerful of a choice as splitting the point would have been. A single ship already has increased crit vulnerability versus two ships. It should not also have an AD disadvantage.
I'm not sayin that the high PL ships should be buffed-up but that they should be just as powerful of a choice as splitting the point would have been. A single ship already has increased crit vulnerability versus two ships. It should not also have an AD disadvantage.
I like some of the ideas to balance out individual ship choices. Particularly the rarity system, and giving out smaller ships as a method of making a given ship worth it's weight in FAP.
Rarity: I like this in particular because it means that I'm not going to see two <CENSORED> Bin'Taks on the field or five <CENSORED> G'Quans. It forces players to consider their options a bit more carefully (Unless you have no options like say the League, Shadows, Ancients, or Vorlons...). It forces people to figure out how to use choices they wouldn't have taken otherwise. However, I don't think rarity works well in pick-up games or tourneys. Where it would shine is the Campaign system. You say this ship, after the campaign has started, costs /this/ much RR to buy.
Escorts: Escorts would be a good thing. It would help balance out a /lot/ of ships, in my opinion. Several limitations I'd put on the escorts though. One, escorts should all be Patrol-level choices. Two, Patrol-level ships don't get escorts. Three, the bigger the ship is, the more likely it is to have multiple escorts. The escorts would be included in the ship's profile, saying as such "Escorts: 2 Tethys Patrol Boats" or whatever. (EDIT: That way the 'rules' changes are mostly behind the scenes.)
Rarity: I like this in particular because it means that I'm not going to see two <CENSORED> Bin'Taks on the field or five <CENSORED> G'Quans. It forces players to consider their options a bit more carefully (Unless you have no options like say the League, Shadows, Ancients, or Vorlons...). It forces people to figure out how to use choices they wouldn't have taken otherwise. However, I don't think rarity works well in pick-up games or tourneys. Where it would shine is the Campaign system. You say this ship, after the campaign has started, costs /this/ much RR to buy.
Escorts: Escorts would be a good thing. It would help balance out a /lot/ of ships, in my opinion. Several limitations I'd put on the escorts though. One, escorts should all be Patrol-level choices. Two, Patrol-level ships don't get escorts. Three, the bigger the ship is, the more likely it is to have multiple escorts. The escorts would be included in the ship's profile, saying as such "Escorts: 2 Tethys Patrol Boats" or whatever. (EDIT: That way the 'rules' changes are mostly behind the scenes.)
