Seriously stupid question... but I need to ask...
- Thread starter Abraxas
- Start date
what about if the negative and the positive balanced out not matter what the lvl eg Tertius (Battle +), 2 Prefects (Raid +), I would have to choose 3 Havens (Patrol -) or 3 Wings of Sentri's or a mix.
This has changed the fleet by alot, can't take Corvans if you max out your big ships. Wonder how much it will change other fleets, ISA, Shadows and Vorlons will be screwed though by their lack of choice. Mimbari maybe screwed as well , unless all fighters a Patrol (-)
This has changed the fleet by alot, can't take Corvans if you max out your big ships. Wonder how much it will change other fleets, ISA, Shadows and Vorlons will be screwed though by their lack of choice. Mimbari maybe screwed as well , unless all fighters a Patrol (-)
Part of the problem of putting any kind of +/- system in will be fleet restrictions. But to some degree that is what we are talking about is that ship choice needs some restrictions otherwise you just take the ships that are better than their pl, resulting in a fleet that is better than the cost you paid for it.
In theory a lot of ships would be neither + nor - resulting in a variety of ships with the restrictions only coming into play when you opt for the + variant. Some races do have a problem with fewer ship choices which could be accomidated by a pl that replaces the +/-. The above mentioned fighter wings being a - choice say or a patrol choice just given up worth so many +.
Not my favorite system but would like to see something to control the stacking of a powerful ship. I do not mind so much the idea of one hull fleets as it fits the fluff very well (we rarely see mixed fleets out of Narn or Centauri or Minbari say), but when we see stacks of what is clearly a support ship or a ship that is clearly called an escort that is only escorting itself it gets to me a tad.
Ripple
In theory a lot of ships would be neither + nor - resulting in a variety of ships with the restrictions only coming into play when you opt for the + variant. Some races do have a problem with fewer ship choices which could be accomidated by a pl that replaces the +/-. The above mentioned fighter wings being a - choice say or a patrol choice just given up worth so many +.
Not my favorite system but would like to see something to control the stacking of a powerful ship. I do not mind so much the idea of one hull fleets as it fits the fluff very well (we rarely see mixed fleets out of Narn or Centauri or Minbari say), but when we see stacks of what is clearly a support ship or a ship that is clearly called an escort that is only escorting itself it gets to me a tad.
Ripple
Pauly_D
Mongoose
Ripple said:
well as a Playtester something i do is try to find those ships that are either too good for their PL or not good enough for their PL, it is a difficult thing because some races have advantages over other races whereas it might not be such an advantage against another race.
One thing i do see alot is that when people complain about a ship and say its overpowered its mostly not because they've tried it against alot of fleets, its because that ship totally wiped their fleet out one time, or they threw everything against a ship and couldnt destroy it. Sometimes its not the ship but the races special rules. for example the Abbai, they suffer against races with Beam weapons, but do really well against fleets with no beams.
and yes the Sagittarius is being looked at and will be brought in line with other Skirmish ships
Well i think that there is alot of powergaming possible in ACTA. More so than in a traditional points game.
Simply because you can take as many of the most powerful vessel of its PL lvl.
But introducing restrictions will not solve the problem.
A Sag is about what? 50% better than it should be? I think or something like that. (Number might be off from what you think, personal opiniona nd doesnt matter in the end.)
So if you play a 5point raid game, every sag gives you a 5% Bonus against your enemy, that he can only correct, by taking 'broken' ships himself. For example, limiting the Sag to 0-2 or something, would mean you can still have a fleet 10% better than the enemies.
IMHO Restrictions are not the way to go. They just make ppl think there is no problem, whil it still exists. Problems need to be solved and not shouldered aside for later revenge.
Simply because you can take as many of the most powerful vessel of its PL lvl.
But introducing restrictions will not solve the problem.
A Sag is about what? 50% better than it should be? I think or something like that. (Number might be off from what you think, personal opiniona nd doesnt matter in the end.)
So if you play a 5point raid game, every sag gives you a 5% Bonus against your enemy, that he can only correct, by taking 'broken' ships himself. For example, limiting the Sag to 0-2 or something, would mean you can still have a fleet 10% better than the enemies.
IMHO Restrictions are not the way to go. They just make ppl think there is no problem, whil it still exists. Problems need to be solved and not shouldered aside for later revenge.
Commador Q
Mongoose
personally i like the priority level system because it's easy to use. however i would be just as happy with a point system provided the point system was based primarily on factors of 10. ie ships cost 10, 20, 30... 90 points. and any upgraids, or small add ons (perhaps if fighters can be bought in smaler numbers than a wing) add up esily to 10. so for example an "average" Raid level ship costs 80 points. so a below average raid level would cost say 90, and fighters could cost 4 points per flight or 10 points for a wing of 3 (that's 1 free if bought as a wing).
Remember the problem isn't just in the overpowered direction. There are two other problems with a strict priority system:
- Ships that are HEAVILY underpowered for their PL but would be the 'duh' choice at a lower PL - see command variants as the most obvious, some other 'improved' variants etc.
- Strict PLs seriously restrict diversity in ship design without running into one of the two previous problems, which in turn makes it considerably harder to have 'fluffy' ships that are also balanced for tournament play.
- Ships that are HEAVILY underpowered for their PL but would be the 'duh' choice at a lower PL - see command variants as the most obvious, some other 'improved' variants etc.
- Strict PLs seriously restrict diversity in ship design without running into one of the two previous problems, which in turn makes it considerably harder to have 'fluffy' ships that are also balanced for tournament play.
If they just aviod the add-ons that have bogged down other systems I cannot see the problem with a point based system. The one really nice thing the PL's had before was it encouraged buying ships of the level of the battle so fleets did not become unwieldy in size (ie swarm fleets), but with the Arm. table that went out the window.
Ripple
Ripple
Commador Q
Mongoose
the other problem with point systems is if the point costs don't add together well. for example if all the point values are multiples of 5 then there is no problem but if a fleet has some ships who's costs are multiples of 5 and others that are mutiples of 3, those 2 classes will be more difficult to use together.
the other problem is that point values don't allow a way to encourage ships of a given size. ie, what is the difference between a 10 point battle fleet and a 5 point war fleet? the answere is the war fleet encourages fewer larger ships, and in the case of fleets that can take allies the maximum size of allied ships is increased.
the other problem is that point values don't allow a way to encourage ships of a given size. ie, what is the difference between a 10 point battle fleet and a 5 point war fleet? the answere is the war fleet encourages fewer larger ships, and in the case of fleets that can take allies the maximum size of allied ships is increased.
Pauly_D
Mongoose
well one the great things about the priority system is when im introducing the game to new players its easy for them to pick a fleet without getting out a calculator and adding all the hundreds of points up as with pts based systems
it is very newbie friendly which i think helps more because can quickly pick up a fleet
it is very newbie friendly which i think helps more because can quickly pick up a fleet
lastbesthope
Mongoose
People seem to be suggesting a quantised points system.
Hmm, quantised points system.....PL...quantised point system....PL.....
:lol:
LBH
Hmm, quantised points system.....PL...quantised point system....PL.....
:lol:
LBH
Celisasu
Mongoose
lastbesthope said:
You're purposely misinterpeting what people are saying about PL vs. Points though.
PL basically rates ships at six different values(1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 in ACTA's case). So all ships(if balanced) have to be at one of those six values. Otherwise you get stuff like the Sagitarius, SFOS White Star, Tertius, Haven, or Dag'kar. A points system could find for example that the War Ship being valued at 16 points is too weak(it's probably a command varient of a Battle Ship) and could drop that value to say...12. Stronger than a basic version of itself but not as good as a War level ship. ACTA with it's Priority system can't do this.
Of course I wouldn't use values of 1, 2, 4, etc for an actual point system.
I'd probably choose a ship to serve as a base value(I'm thinking an Omega Destroyer at 200 points) and then work out all the other ships from there with a rule that all ships have to a value in incriments of 10(so no 93 point ships for example). We then balance ships around our core ship. For example lets say that I've decided that I want a Sharlin to be able to defeat two Omegas most of the time but still have a chance of being defeated by them. I finally get my Sharlin to be able to do so and set it's value at 450 points. Easy number to work with. Later on I find out that the Sharlin is stronger than I thought because some players are better than abusing it than I am. Now instead of completely reworking the stats I just up the points cost a bit until it's balanced.
I'd slightly overprice fighters when operating independantly from capital ships to prevent the fighter swarm. This also encourages players to look at getting carriers or ships with fighters already included rather than just fighters.
This also solves the "No viable choices at Priority X" problem that some races face under ACTA. Such as Minbari and ISA(when without allies) at Patrol.
Celisasu has it right.
Thats basically what should be done, and would solve many problems, short of balancing about 20 ships....(gut feeling)
OTOH dont get too stuck on exact points like only increments of 5.
Warmachine by Privateer Press has any points they like, and most games tend to be in the 500-750 region. STill games are balanced, since you tend to end up within 5 points of the mark.
Thats alot better than some ships currently manage. Taking an Omega Command drops you more like 25 points down.... :S
Thats basically what should be done, and would solve many problems, short of balancing about 20 ships....(gut feeling)
OTOH dont get too stuck on exact points like only increments of 5.
Warmachine by Privateer Press has any points they like, and most games tend to be in the 500-750 region. STill games are balanced, since you tend to end up within 5 points of the mark.
Thats alot better than some ships currently manage. Taking an Omega Command drops you more like 25 points down.... :S
Yeah, Celisasu is pretty much on the mark.
All the talk of a +/- system has been an attempt to stay within the PL system but get a more accurate balance. Acting like it was anyones prefered system is just baiting. Compromise solutions often look unwieldy and are easily mocked, but sometimes they they add enough that everyone is able to find a comfortable space. Mocking folks efforts to find a middle ground a fairly low place to go.
Ripple
All the talk of a +/- system has been an attempt to stay within the PL system but get a more accurate balance. Acting like it was anyones prefered system is just baiting. Compromise solutions often look unwieldy and are easily mocked, but sometimes they they add enough that everyone is able to find a comfortable space. Mocking folks efforts to find a middle ground a fairly low place to go.
Ripple
Actually, LBH, as I read it, people aren't looking for a quantized point system, but a continuous one. You won't get there, of course, as we (arbitrarily) are fixing ourselves to use integers....
Celisasu,
Save yourself a bit of work and find out what your lowest increment will be and simply call it "1". In the example you state, the Command Omega would be worth 20 (200/fundamental unit 10). Small numbers are easier to get your hands around, after all. Then, you only need to establish one constant. Smaller numbers are more user-friendly, anyways.
Of course, if you want to allow people to buy individual flights, you might have some use for that deleted units digit above. Shrug. 1 point per Kotha!
Celisasu,
Save yourself a bit of work and find out what your lowest increment will be and simply call it "1". In the example you state, the Command Omega would be worth 20 (200/fundamental unit 10). Small numbers are easier to get your hands around, after all. Then, you only need to establish one constant. Smaller numbers are more user-friendly, anyways.
Of course, if you want to allow people to buy individual flights, you might have some use for that deleted units digit above. Shrug. 1 point per Kotha!
Twin-Linked Aldades
Mongoose
You know what the funny part is...
let`s assume Mongoose DID start the game way back then with a points system. The board would be flooded with people saying that one costs to much or to less and someone would have a luminous idea of saying `hey, let`s make a sort of level system, let`s make a priority system to label the vessels...` (remember BFG)
The point being, the game has a level engine. Not every ship is fairly balanced against each other and some are weaker, some are better. reality is, we will have to live with that!
And in the end, absolutely no-one prohibits you from taking the badder vessels instead of just fielding the good ones. I do that, I occassionally field ships like the Explorer and Oracle though I can have the Delphi and Chronos in their place for example (not everyone has Arma already, so this is talking EA SFoS style). I field Command Omega`s because, well, it is an Omega after all. My Orestes has seen it`s kilometres on it`s engine...
I think it just comes down to pure and basic competiveness. Competition isn`t bad in a human, it`s in your species nature. But this also makes that people take better vessels for easier wins (or at least attempts at that) and players who get wh****d complaining about it.
The first tourney overhere I played an ISA fleet, and came out first. After that, suddenly I no longer was the only ISA player but they started to pop up from the bushes. Why? Cause they saw the little plucked chickens win a tournament. The next tourney, EA came out one and two, and no WS to end even near the top three (nor did the Minbari). This does mean one thing, experience does count a LOT in this game, and no matter how good your vessel or not, it does count out. Same with all those damage tables that pop around of that ship does so much and that only so much... but you can`t calculate bad or good rolls into that... it is a game and a game uses luck.
Aaaanyways, i got into a rant here apparently without wanting to, so all is fine on the Nietschzean front, we3re still coming to take over earth, no worries, but our fleet will be divided into PL levels as we don`t count points here in Witchhead
let`s assume Mongoose DID start the game way back then with a points system. The board would be flooded with people saying that one costs to much or to less and someone would have a luminous idea of saying `hey, let`s make a sort of level system, let`s make a priority system to label the vessels...` (remember BFG)
The point being, the game has a level engine. Not every ship is fairly balanced against each other and some are weaker, some are better. reality is, we will have to live with that!
And in the end, absolutely no-one prohibits you from taking the badder vessels instead of just fielding the good ones. I do that, I occassionally field ships like the Explorer and Oracle though I can have the Delphi and Chronos in their place for example (not everyone has Arma already, so this is talking EA SFoS style). I field Command Omega`s because, well, it is an Omega after all. My Orestes has seen it`s kilometres on it`s engine...
I think it just comes down to pure and basic competiveness. Competition isn`t bad in a human, it`s in your species nature. But this also makes that people take better vessels for easier wins (or at least attempts at that) and players who get wh****d complaining about it.
The first tourney overhere I played an ISA fleet, and came out first. After that, suddenly I no longer was the only ISA player but they started to pop up from the bushes. Why? Cause they saw the little plucked chickens win a tournament. The next tourney, EA came out one and two, and no WS to end even near the top three (nor did the Minbari). This does mean one thing, experience does count a LOT in this game, and no matter how good your vessel or not, it does count out. Same with all those damage tables that pop around of that ship does so much and that only so much... but you can`t calculate bad or good rolls into that... it is a game and a game uses luck.
Aaaanyways, i got into a rant here apparently without wanting to, so all is fine on the Nietschzean front, we3re still coming to take over earth, no worries, but our fleet will be divided into PL levels as we don`t count points here in Witchhead
