Valen is my name
Mongoose
This is the same as the other poll, but has the new option, but im not going to suggest the changes, just ask if you'd like them
REVISED: Current PL, Points or Diff PL?
- Thread starter Valen is my name
- Start date
Lord David the Denied
Mongoose
I still favour a points system, even though Matt has said it won't happen... :wink:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well as it stands the current system just ISNT balanced and 90% of the ships in most fleet lists never see the light of day.
I have high hopes for the fleets being rebalanced in 2nd Ed but I'd also like to see some kind of rarity system to encourage more variety in fleets and not just 'skirmish swarms' (though I admit in some fleets cases this is actually appropriate to what we see on screen (Drazi come to mind))
I have high hopes for the fleets being rebalanced in 2nd Ed but I'd also like to see some kind of rarity system to encourage more variety in fleets and not just 'skirmish swarms' (though I admit in some fleets cases this is actually appropriate to what we see on screen (Drazi come to mind))
emperorpenguin
Mongoose
Locutus9956 said:
90%? :shock: I think someone is exaggerating............... :wink:
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Ka'Tan, Ka'Toc. And yes I WAS exagerating obviously but the point still stands. At the moment there are too many ships that just dont get used because they simply cant compete at their PL and too many that ALWAYS get used as theyre a bit TOO good.
As for 'plus impossibility of determining 100% fair price to begin with' I would argue that while this is not entirely the fault of the system it's certainly not helped by it when you basically have 6 possible values to assign. I can appreciate that in most wargames alot of units tend to 'clump' around certain points values (infantry, cavalry, tanks, fighters, carriers, destroyers etc etc) but the difference in point value or in many cases CLEAR difference in roles (or even simply limited availability of some things) leads to more variety.
I can appreciates where Matt was coming from with his 'we don't want to rule on what players can and cannot take' from the point of view of the company if you start limiting certain models, well, youre going to sell less of them. But converesely you might find you sell more of the OTHERS. And I'm sorry but, especially for a game that has an active tournament scene you DO need to tell people what they can and cannot take. Most people play the game for fun and try to take interesting and fun fleets to play but theres always some powergamers out there who WILL abuse any opertunity to field cheesy boring 1 ship fleets (10 Saggs anyone?).
Now if the Saggitarius had been classed as a support ship and limited to say 1 or two in a 5 point raid fleet then would we have had the same problems with the Armageddon version? I think not. It may still have been too good but the effect it would have had on games overall would have been minimised (broken ships dont usually REALLY break the game until they start making up the majority of your fleet in my experience. The trouble is as soon as Johny Powergamer notices such a ship and recognizes its potential he will jump at the chance to take a whole fleet of them. And then you get problems, unless theres a rule in place to turn about and say 'OI! NOOOO!!'. It's not just broken ships either, some TYPES of ships that are not actually unbalanced (in my eyes anyway) can end up seeming so if used in numbers. Small ships with high firepower are a classic example of this, en masse the firepower is terrifying and the numbers mean you cant simply deal with them by blowing the offending target up as thats only a small fraction of the firepower. Again the 'Narn Bat Squad' is a classic example of this. I don't think the Ka'Tan or Ka'Toc is broken in the slightest but fielding 10 of them is just a bit cheap imho. Not broken, it CAN be countered, but just a bit TOO easy to win with to seem fair somehow.
As for 'plus impossibility of determining 100% fair price to begin with' I would argue that while this is not entirely the fault of the system it's certainly not helped by it when you basically have 6 possible values to assign. I can appreciate that in most wargames alot of units tend to 'clump' around certain points values (infantry, cavalry, tanks, fighters, carriers, destroyers etc etc) but the difference in point value or in many cases CLEAR difference in roles (or even simply limited availability of some things) leads to more variety.
I can appreciates where Matt was coming from with his 'we don't want to rule on what players can and cannot take' from the point of view of the company if you start limiting certain models, well, youre going to sell less of them. But converesely you might find you sell more of the OTHERS. And I'm sorry but, especially for a game that has an active tournament scene you DO need to tell people what they can and cannot take. Most people play the game for fun and try to take interesting and fun fleets to play but theres always some powergamers out there who WILL abuse any opertunity to field cheesy boring 1 ship fleets (10 Saggs anyone?).
Now if the Saggitarius had been classed as a support ship and limited to say 1 or two in a 5 point raid fleet then would we have had the same problems with the Armageddon version? I think not. It may still have been too good but the effect it would have had on games overall would have been minimised (broken ships dont usually REALLY break the game until they start making up the majority of your fleet in my experience. The trouble is as soon as Johny Powergamer notices such a ship and recognizes its potential he will jump at the chance to take a whole fleet of them. And then you get problems, unless theres a rule in place to turn about and say 'OI! NOOOO!!'. It's not just broken ships either, some TYPES of ships that are not actually unbalanced (in my eyes anyway) can end up seeming so if used in numbers. Small ships with high firepower are a classic example of this, en masse the firepower is terrifying and the numbers mean you cant simply deal with them by blowing the offending target up as thats only a small fraction of the firepower. Again the 'Narn Bat Squad' is a classic example of this. I don't think the Ka'Tan or Ka'Toc is broken in the slightest but fielding 10 of them is just a bit cheap imho. Not broken, it CAN be countered, but just a bit TOO easy to win with to seem fair somehow.
Point system, Why its easier in the future to ad new Ships. No need to recalculate the hole fleet list´s for every race.
Right now when a new ship is aded, it look for me they check only where does it suit in the Fleetlist of that race and then we got unusesable ship in some list because to weak or to strong.
Right now when a new ship is aded, it look for me they check only where does it suit in the Fleetlist of that race and then we got unusesable ship in some list because to weak or to strong.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Dont be silly burger theres the possibility it might end up at the right PL then 
<---- Still grumpy about the very bad joke that is the new Troligan....
<---- Still grumpy about the very bad joke that is the new Troligan....
Jhary said:
The thing about points that lends a great skew to things is how certain things are valued - how much is a turn worth? How much is the adaptive armour trait worth?
Just looking at the points system for Full Thrust shows you that simple racial traits can often be payed for through the nose (things like Kra'vak and Sa'vasku drive systems spring to mind). Often you end up paying far more than you should for what you get.
Mongoose seem to balance this is some crazy AD/range juggling act which IMO usually comes up short. It certainly does come up short in most of the ship variants.
I don´t say hat a Point system is perfect but it works better then this crazy PL system we have now. If i look close over the fleetlists i see strange things ships that have a hull of 4 and less damage and crew less punch with there weapons are called equal to Hull 6 ships in the same PL.
The maybe some people in MG find that civicial ships have to high numbers. Or coud some one explane my why they have Hull4 and a Vree Scout hull 3?
Matt wrote that in the beginning they had a Point system so why can´t they just ad that as specialrule like inofficial open for every one. so they coud see what the peole really want to use.
It woud be just one line more for each ship or one side with the rules to calculat it.
The maybe some people in MG find that civicial ships have to high numbers. Or coud some one explane my why they have Hull4 and a Vree Scout hull 3?
Matt wrote that in the beginning they had a Point system so why can´t they just ad that as specialrule like inofficial open for every one. so they coud see what the peole really want to use.
It woud be just one line more for each ship or one side with the rules to calculat it.
Celisasu
Mongoose
I've always been an advocate of the points system. Really the PL system is a point system just with a very limited number selection. Namely values of 1(Patrol), 2(Skirmish), 4(Raid), 8(Battle), 16(War), 32(Armageddon), and 64(Ancient). This is where part of the problem develops. You have ships like the Tertius or G'Quonth which have effective values that are higher than 8 but lower than 16 but because of the PL system you can't represent that. This leads to the situation of the always used Tertius since it's been declared to be an 8 point ship even though it's real value is probably around 10 and the never used G'Quonth which is a 16 point ship under the current system but probably has a real value of 12 or so.
lastbesthope
Mongoose
Celisasu said:
You;re assuming a base for reference at Patrol PL, and you're assuming a constant base level, neither of which is really true, the base level at which ships are bought changes.
For example, at Patrol PL, an Armageddon ship is worth 32 Patrol ships, whilst at Raid Level an Armageddon Ship is worth 24 Patrol ships.
Your point has some merit, but it is not as cut and dried as you suggest, the relative values of different levels shift depending at what PL the ships in question are being bought.
LBH
