Points system vs PL

ha, this thread is proving one of my points in itself, about half the posters love PL system and the other half don't understand why mongoose dont change to the more "logical" point system.

Take note Matt Sprange, keep the current system and half the community will be pissed, but if you change it the other half will get pissed off instead. You are so screwed! lol

The good thing about this is that for most I think it is a minor gripe, I know I would keep playing whichever system you used and I think most of the players on this forum would too.
 
Hindsight said:
A points system would resolve the swarm issue, as you'd need a command ship standard, meaning everyone brings a capital ship, and we can finally balance the larger ships upwards, and just have their points reflect the change, make it a no brainer to take a 200 point ship if you've got a thousand to spend. Make people want to take a single 200 point ship if thats all they're going to get, because 200 points is 200 points.

Some ships are meant to be better than others, and I could just pay points for a better, healthier White Star, and not have to constantly be balancing towards some imaginary raid level standard.

I can pay for upgrades with points, instead of as a variant, and trim the fat and only take what I feel I need in cases where I don't need a fighter bay or scout.

That's exactly one of the things I meant when I said points wouldn't solve any problems. The solution you propose could just as easily be implemented under a PL system as points. Use existing PL system but at least one ship must be battle PL or higher. Its the same solution under both systems whether its "take at least 1 200 point ship" or "take at least 1 Battle PL ship", in this case Battle PL is just a 200 point ship by a different name.
 
Lord David is right about one thing: if you use point values, you can track in on correct pricing. What you'd need to do is track the use of each type of ship in the game. We can probably do that with the use of boards on the web pretty easily. Then, we'd look at what gets selected and what does not. If things are not selected in the ratios that one would expect, you adjust the prices, and perform the task again. And again.

In a truly perfect world, you'd link up to the internet on your Cell Phone/PDA and download the current ship point values. They'd be calculated on the fly by a supply-demand market. You could even handle races that way, I suppose (it'd be a bit finickier, as people tend to play games with the models they already own, not based on balance). At the end of a year or so, you'd have very very good balance.

Too bad, of course, the gaming doesn't work that way. Or that the world doesn't have that kind of information backbone for gaming ....

... yet.
 
CZuschlag said:
Lord David is right about one thing: if you use point values, you can track in on correct pricing. What you'd need to do is track the use of each type of ship in the game. We can probably do that with the use of boards on the web pretty easily. Then, we'd look at what gets selected and what does not. If things are not selected in the ratios that one would expect, you adjust the prices, and perform the task again. And again.

In a truly perfect world, you'd link up to the internet on your Cell Phone/PDA and download the current ship point values. They'd be calculated on the fly by a supply-demand market. You could even handle races that way, I suppose (it'd be a bit finickier, as people tend to play games with the models they already own, not based on balance). At the end of a year or so, you'd have very very good balance.

Too bad, of course, the gaming doesn't work that way. Or that the world doesn't have that kind of information backbone for gaming ....

... yet.

That's certainly an interesting and elegant solution, but I think the main problem is that it doesn't take into account as you said "people tend to use ships they have minis for", also many people take ships/races etc based on how much they like them, if they're iconic or not, rather than how effective they are. Why do you think the most used fleet is Earth Alliance. Its not because its the best, but because people like EA from the show. A market based solution would see Omega Destroyers and Whitestars cost more points than Brivoki's lol.
 
l33tpenguin said:
I like the PL system in theory, but in practice, it needs more work. I think more levels might help things a bit. say, 10 instead of 6. the current 2-fers need their own PL. I think 2-fers as 2-fers is just a really dumb concept. I would also like to see a level between 'armageddon' and 'ancient' that only the vorlons and shadows have ships at.

I like PL because of its feel and the theory behind it, but I have to admit, the granularity of points is nice as well. Fleets are constructed on these exact measurments of ability to fit within 6 levels of power. It is a very affected design

Very well said.

I'm all for a points system as this is a tried and tested system, where as the PL system is still quite new, and as such just needs a few more PL's added to help balance out the issues. My only concern if more PL's are added is that it could mean the Swarm of low end PL fleets get bigger when fighting against high PL ships. The problem with this is the way the Critical Damage system works... just make it an extra D6 of damage and crew that is modifiyed based on the weapon traits that caused the Critical. Nice and easy.

I think the PL system can work, and I look forward to see what Mongoose do with it.
 
One advantage to the points system is the empty fighter bays some people have suggested. Buy an Omega Destroyer for 300 points + fighters, then pay for the fighter complement you want. That way, Thunderbolts could cost more than Auroras, and have more accurate stats, reflecting the fact it's just flat better. Rutarians might see more use, as well, as currently a patrol slot for four upgrade flights is just too much when so many races have effective counters to fighters anyway.
 
I prefer the PL system, it may have its flaws, but its unique, it makes chosing a fleet quick and easy, and its unique to ACTA.

Matt has also stated several times that there is no way there will ever be a points system in acta.
 
This is why I'm just about at wits end with even posting here. Everything I say is wrong from someones point of view. As they are just one person, like me, their argument is just as valid as mine, and carries as much (read: as little) weight. We all have our experiences where the games we've played haven't measured up. The example that ACTA is different than the rest, because it uses the PL system doesn't mean it uses it to the fullest.

The ships aren't in balance, and many of the changes favor complaints, instead of doing some kind of math, like what I was shown, to truly balance out all craft to their PL, and then it becomes a matter of taking the right ship, and assigning your own value if its worth it to you to take ship A over ship B.

Granted, for me, thats one or two, maybe three craft, so maybe that is where my frustration comes from. I know I'm done, at least for a little while, as I tend to get more frustrated at the people who think I'm out to see the White Star be this Cheese Vessel in space. I just want to play a fleet like what I see in the show, and have at least a shot in hell at winning. You know... balance =)
 
It's a big group, with lots of different opinions. Only a very select few actually get listened to around here, and what qualifies them for that is a total mystery to the rest of us. The rest of us just carry on raving and yelling anyway.

Welcome to Mongoose's forum. :D
 
Hindsight said:
This is why I'm just about at wits end with even posting here. Everything I say is wrong from someones point of view. As they are just one person, like me, their argument is just as valid as mine, and carries as much (read: as little) weight. We all have our experiences where the games we've played haven't measured up. The example that ACTA is different than the rest, because it uses the PL system doesn't mean it uses it to the fullest.

The ships aren't in balance, and many of the changes favor complaints, instead of doing some kind of math, like what I was shown, to truly balance out all craft to their PL, and then it becomes a matter of taking the right ship, and assigning your own value if its worth it to you to take ship A over ship B.

Granted, for me, thats one or two, maybe three craft, so maybe that is where my frustration comes from. I know I'm done, at least for a little while, as I tend to get more frustrated at the people who think I'm out to see the White Star be this Cheese Vessel in space. I just want to play a fleet like what I see in the show, and have at least a shot in hell at winning. You know... balance =)

I didn't see anyone accuse you of wanting to cheese the whitestar, at least not on this thread. Most people love the whitestar and want to use it often as well. You have made many interesting and well thought out suggestions on the various threads since you joined, most of the comments about your posts seem largely positive. As far as this thread goes you have just as many people agree with you as the other, seems pretty much split 50/50. No one on this thread seems that vehement about their side, most people seem to be just marginally in favour of one way than the other (I for one am for the PL system, but points wouldn't be a disastrous idea, its just a mild preference). I don't think anyone thinks the other side is daft, so tell us what you think, no one dislikes you or your views that I can see.
 
Hindsight said:
I know I'm done, at least for a little while, as I tend to get more frustrated at the people who think I'm out to see the White Star be this Cheese Vessel in space. I just want to play a fleet like what I see in the show, and have at least a shot in hell at winning. You know... balance =)

Well, to be fair though, a major part of the issue is that there are already tactics that can be employed that make the ISA list (and White Stars in particular) very strong indeed. The fact that these tactics, which are standing off at 18" and beaming your opponent to death from outside his firing arcs, aren't what we see on screen is a direct consequence of the WS having a F arc.

In my opinion, if the WS was boresighted, it would have to close in order to get a shot and thus make it behave more like it does in the show, and make it more likely that the pulsars are going to be used. If that were the case, there would actually be an argument for the WS to receive some sort of buff, which in my opinion should either be Vree-style SM, or an extra die on the beam though I'd want to see it drop to DD in the case.

Regards,

Dave
 
Hindsight said:
This is why I'm just about at wits end with even posting here. Everything I say is wrong from someones point of view. As they are just one person, like me, their argument is just as valid as mine, and carries as much (read: as little) weight. We all have our experiences where the games we've played haven't measured up. The example that ACTA is different than the rest, because it uses the PL system doesn't mean it uses it to the fullest.

The ships aren't in balance, and many of the changes favor complaints, instead of doing some kind of math, like what I was shown, to truly balance out all craft to their PL, and then it becomes a matter of taking the right ship, and assigning your own value if its worth it to you to take ship A over ship B.

Granted, for me, thats one or two, maybe three craft, so maybe that is where my frustration comes from. I know I'm done, at least for a little while, as I tend to get more frustrated at the people who think I'm out to see the White Star be this Cheese Vessel in space. I just want to play a fleet like what I see in the show, and have at least a shot in hell at winning. You know... balance =)

Just a side note, I think the whitestars do very well in roughly raid engagements, which is what they are really designed for in the show. They don't fare as well against bigger (Armageddon) engagements just like in the show. After a big battle in the shadow war sheridan said "We did OK, not great but we held our own. But we lost a lot of ships" Most of the larger battles required Minbari War Cruisers or G'Quans etc. The whitestars in the show didn't fare that well against big ships which is why Sheridan proposed the Victory class of ships "A Destroyer class whitestar" I think the whitestars do perform very much as they did in the show, very well against raiders or smaller targets, but needing larger ships to support in big engagements. If you want battles with whitestars I suggest battles around their PL, for larger battles do what Sheridan did and use larger ships with whitestars in support.
 
Lord David the Denied said:
It's a big group, with lots of different opinions. Only a very select few actually get listened to around here, and what qualifies them for that is a total mystery to the rest of us. The rest of us just carry on raving and yelling anyway.

Welcome to Mongoose's forum. :D

For What It's Worth:

I think one of the more effective ways of gaining credibility here is when you identify problem ships within the fleet that you run and argue effectvely for Nerfing Your Own Fleet. And not the pre-emptive, Let's-See-If-I-Can-Keep-the-Nerf-to-a-Minimum argument, raising an honest balance issue about your own fleet.

I've brought up:

-- The Amu
-- The Ma'cu
-- The Targrath
-- The Jashakar Tae
-- The Mankhat

as problem children in my own fleet. That gives me more credibility when I argue that I have low-side issues with (and ships I don't own):

-- The Rongoth
-- The G'Sten
-- The Bimith
-- The Nightfalcon

From there, you can argue about your own fleet's shortcomings:

-- The Ochliavita
-- The Kamare Sas
-- The Drakh Scout

before you do the hardest part of all, argue about other fleet's overpowered ships:

-- The Gaim (all of it!)
-- The Demos
-- The G'Vrahn
-- The Xaar
-- The Xonn
-- The White Star
-- The Haltona
-- All the Two-fers

This establishes that you care more about the balance of the whole of the game than getting your preferred cookie in the next update.

Of course, this takes:

-- Being right more often than not (Hard! And, my success rate isn't perfect...).
-- A long time to establish track record.

Getting way off topic-----

It works that way in life, too --- establish credibility beyond all else first, even to the point of arguing against your best interests, then go for what you believe is right; trust that you'll be taken care of in the end. It's very effective, mostly because most people are decent.
 
I like the idea of ships coming with out fighters a pl level just for fighters would be good could solve the twofers as well
 
Something like the revised FAP is OK so long as the ships are generally accurate for their level and each race has access to an adequate number of ships. As rating of units will never be perfect against all races, if a race has a good number of ships at most levels, a clinker or two isn't too bad but if you have a small number to choose from and you have a clinker or two...


Sincerely,

Andrew Norris
 
I like the FAP system... I also dislike it for some reasons as well.

You can't please everybody, so even if Mongoose announced tomorrow "Bugger the FAP system, we're putting our money behind a points system!", there would still be people who like the FAP system, others who hate points, and others who would still haggle over ship balance. Let sleeping dogs lie; a switch to one or the other isn't going to change anything about the fanbase.

Say... an announcement of switching ACTA to points sounds like a great April Fool's gag...
 
Back
Top