Thinking about point values

[JRhoades]

Given an informal analysis of a huge data set, or a rigorous analysis of anecdotal evidence, which should we prefer?

The relative pointing used in the official material is largely a direct import from FedCom/SFB, where the ships have been tested against each other for years. While informal, that is a huge play-test (data) set. Even without knowing how big your play group is or how many games you have logged, the play styles of the individual members of any gaming group absolutely confound this kind of analysis. At least if we try to apply it universally. This looks like an awesome, fully realized handicap rating system for your gaming group.

Looking at the sophistication of your analysis, I am betting you already know this.

That said, very cool modelling! I would very much love if gaming companies collected data on games, analyzed it vigoursly -- as you have -- and used it to balance their point buy systems. From what you already have, synergies and diminishing returns should be fairly straight-forward to model!

 

[Rick]

Dammit I'm a wargamer not a walking computer. Damn your Vulcan logic! :twisted:

 

[gord314]

I would like to point out that the data collected during testing in federation commander is largely irrelevant since the game systems themselves are very different.

 

[tneva82]

While it might be theoretically possible to come up with a programmable points system to reflect all of these factors

Nope. It's 100% impossible to create fully working point system for miniature games. Too many factors that aren't even same for everybody.

 

[dalek4890l]

While it might be theoretically possible to come up with a programmable points system to reflect all of these factors

Nope. It's 100% impossible to create fully working point system for miniature games. Too many factors that aren't even same for everybody.

True, much as I hate to admit it there's no provision for when I go up against players that are better than me :wink: . I do think this is a useful system though (but it will never be adopted) I would say that I think the cloak is under-priced, Perhaps alter it to 15-20%?

Is it me or do a lot of people seem to be thinking that reducing the efficiency of drones (or more the correctly increasing the efficiency of Increase Defensive Fire) at a range of over 18" is a good idea

Don't worry about what the man in red says (it's not official :shock: )

 

[MongooseMatt]

True, much as I hate to admit it there's no provision for when I go up against players that are better than me :wink:

This.

This is a Big Factor when it comes to playtesting. If we are actually watching over groups, we can take steps to counteract it, but when you have playtesters literally on the other side of the world, you have to watch reports like a hawk.

 

[MongooseMatt]

The problem with a simple linear regression model is that it does not accurately reflect system synergy, at the individual ship, and fleet level.

This is very important, especially with CTA, where points are calculated/selected at a fleet level _not_ an individual ship level. CTA is not a one-ship-on-one-ship game and so direct comparisons (oh, we had many in B5 ) do not always pan out. If you find yourself looking at an enemy fleet and thinking 'well they get X, Y and Z _much_ cheaper than I do' then you are probably going down the wrong path

Fleets themselves have to be taken into account. The difference in initiative scores alone makes them variable, and then when you add in special rules like Klingon shields, or access to certain weapons like photons, a more generalised approach is called for.

The best example I like to give for this was with Starship Troopers (not a fleet game, but the components of a land-based army all have to work together). Warrior Bugs were really cheap, something like 15 points, if I recall. However, if you took all their stats and put them in the MI list, their cost would be tripled or quadrupled, because while they are a very 'workaday' unit for bugs, they would fill a massive hole (lack of decent close combat) in the MI list.

I suppose, off the top of my head, the SF equivalent would be putting a D6 or D7 straight into the Federation list. It would get around the (intentional) lack of agile Federation ships in the cruiser range, and give them weapons that were previously inaccessible - thus, would be costed higher than in the Klingon fleet.

That is not to say everything in the written word is infallible, which is why we keep an eye on threads like this We _are_ taking a serious look at the Kzinti drone issue (we've found a 'tipping point' and are looking at ways of dealing with it without nerfing anything else), and I am a proponent of giving the Gorn a 'gift' (but then, I am also a proponent of giving them more Lumbering, not less ). And I think the Ortega will probably see a change in points (but not the Kirov - maybe some of its variants).

Anyway, keep up the discussion, love chatting about mechanics, design strategy, or pretty much anything to do with games

 

[TJHairball]

I think the Kirov is a fairly good example of synergy beyond the simple one on one points value. Alone it may be too cheap but in concert with the overpriced standard CA's, the Feds can hold their own with the seemingly better, cheaper Klingons. (The BCJ is too cheap any way you slice it)

The problem is the idea that you would have ships like the Kirov working in concert with the overpriced standard CAs.

Why even ever take a standard CA? They're overpriced. As I've commented in other threads, when point values are busted, you can't appeal to the rest of the fleet to balance it. It's quite easy to build a fleet list that only uses the more efficient UFP ships - and it is, frankly, what competitive players do when faced with the official point values.

I think any adjustments have to be sequential. Assuming some adjustment to drones (and I like the if fired over 18", anyone can shoot at it approach) is the first then a recasting of drone and ADD values is in order. I'd argue that Agile is still a bit underpriced and Lumbering probably deserves a discount more in the -20% range but I'd much rather adjust weapon and ship performance (such as taking lumbering off Gorn cruisers) first and then adjust points rather than the other way around.

I understand your point; but I'm not really interested in rewriting and redeveloping the rules until they fit. I'd much rather figure out what guidelines will work better to create interesting games, given that we're playing the game that we're playing; and re-pointing seems to me to be the way to address that.

Rules issues mostly reflect inter-faction problems. Drones are slightly problematic at the moment, for example, but that has more to do with the balance of, say, Gorn vs Kzinti. The pointing issues I see a problem with are more intra-factional in nature. The BCJ vs the NCC, again, to use the most severely egregious example of erroneous pointing in the official lists.

It's nice that I can compare the KR and the D6, and come to the conclusion that the Klingons are getting a better deal on their version, but ultimately, it's the fact that the KR is a less efficient model at what it does than the KF5R, KRC, or KC9R (all of which also compare better across to their Klingon counterparts) that's more relevant to the Romulan player thinking about whether or not it is a good unit; and it's the comparison with the similar Sparrowhawk that matters the most in seeing whether or not the Romulan player will take it in battles.

 

[tneva82]

True, much as I hate to admit it there's no provision for when I go up against players that are better than me :wink:

I'm not talking about player skill...

Put two 100% equally skilled players against and I can quarantee 100% certainly it's impossible to create point system that ensures games are fully balanced.

 

[TJHairball]

I suppose, off the top of my head, the SF equivalent would be putting a D6 or D7 straight into the Federation list. It would get around the (intentional) lack of agile Federation ships in the cruiser range, and give them weapons that were previously inaccessible - thus, would be costed higher than in the Klingon fleet.

This would be an exception to the general pointing practices seen in ACTA:SF.

The lighter Gorn ships represent the exception to the Gorn non-maneuverability; as I see it, the two most point-efficient ships in the Gorn fleet are the Ceratosaurus and Stegosaurus, which are, respectively, Turn 4 Agile and Turn 4. These don't seem to be pointed any particularly higher than they would be in a more agile fleet.

The heavy ships that seem least bad by the points values are the fast cruiser (which is unique among Gorn ships in being fast, of course) and the Epanterias-K, which is only one of two Gorn ships to carry a Plasma-R.

The DWD seems remarkably point-efficient, and represents a unique opportunity for a Federation player to mass drones in a Kzinti fashion - it does so more efficiently than the equivalent Kzin ship. The Federation plasma torpedo variants, rare dips into alternate weaponry, trade Plasma-Fs for photons for free or at a slight discount.

The Kestrel series, a way for Romulans to borrow modified Klingon ships, are on the whole - for Romulan ships - pretty good values, especially the KRC, which is the only ship in the Romulan fleet with plasma-D launchers (and therefore, a good defense against drones, which is otherwise a clear vulnerability the Romulan fleet - it also has 5 tractor beams, even).

On the flip side of that, the Condor is turn 9 lumbering (the exception in a Romulan fleet that is on the whole more agile than similar Federation ships), which has a spectacularly bad interaction with the cloaking rules as written (meaning it cannot turn and move while remaining cloaked) - but even without accounting for that particular anti-synergistic combination, it seems overpriced.

We _are_ taking a serious look at the Kzinti drone issue (we've found a 'tipping point' and are looking at ways of dealing with it without nerfing anything else), and I am a proponent of giving the Gorn a 'gift' (but then, I am also a proponent of giving them more Lumbering, not less ). And I think the Ortega will probably see a change in points (but not the Kirov - maybe some of its variants).

I'm glad to hear there are some official changes in the pipeline.

 

[Captain Jonah]

TJHairball What do the costs of the Gorn work out to be if you remove the Lumbering from them?

(The BCJ is too cheap any way you slice it)

I think any adjustments have to be sequential. Assuming some adjustment to drones (and I like the if fired over 18", anyone can shoot at it approach)

I'd argue that Agile is still a bit underpriced and Lumbering probably deserves a discount more in the -20% range but I'd much rather adjust weapon and ship performance (such as taking lumbering off Gorn cruisers) first and then adjust points rather than the other way around.

Welcome to the Shoot Down The Drone Club,

Yep, welcome to the Gorn deserve to turn corners too club

Given an informal analysis of a huge data set, or a rigorous analysis of anecdotal evidence, which should we prefer?

SFB and FC are nothing like ACTA-SF. The fact that the ships are based entirely on the FC costs reflecting how well they are balanced in FC is basically meaningless in ACTA-SF.

Once we have fought a thousand battles using ACTA-SF then we will have a clear chain of evidence to point out the flaws that many of us are talking about now.

Till then everything we say is gamers gut instinct and old timers eye for rules. That we will likely be proved right on a lot of what we say will have to wait till the proof is there that Drones are such a big problem when people play “Stay Away”, that many ships are pointed badly, too cheap or too expensive. THAT MSPRANGE HATES GORN ! ! ! ! !

People say to me that ACTA-NA works this way, FC points are based on years or experience etc. Yes but this isn’t those games.

PS What Gord314 said

Fleets themselves have to be taken into account. The difference in initiative scores alone makes them variable, and then when you add in special rules like Klingon shields, or access to certain weapons like photons, a more generalised approach is called for.

So how much does the Gorn lack of an Initiative Bonus AND the Lumbering reduce Gorn ship costs then :roll:

That is not to say everything in the written word is infallible, which is why we keep an eye on threads like this We _are_ taking a serious look at the Kzinti drone issue (we've found a 'tipping point' and are looking at ways of dealing with it without nerfing anything else),

Glad to hear this, does it have anything to do with any ship being able to shoot them down under certain conditions rather than changes to IDF or global seeking weapons which would also impact Plasmas :lol:

and I am a proponent of giving the Gorn a 'gift' (but then, I am also a proponent of giving them more Lumbering, not less ). And I think the Ortega will probably see a change in points (but not the Kirov - maybe some of its variants).

Anyway, keep up the discussion, love chatting about mechanics, design strategy, or pretty much anything to do with games

We don’t want a gift, well unless it’s the removal of Lumbering from our Cruisers. :roll:

Ortega yes, fully agree it needs a cost increase in its DWD form. Though this depends on what you are talking about with solving the Drone problem. It may be the fragile nature of the ship combined with forcing it to close to make its Drones effective leaves it balanced at its existing price.

Re the Kirov. I’ll wait and see what you are thinking about here.

Re the bit in Red. Mr Sprange. Are you aware that the first step to curing such a serious mental problem is acknowledging it’s existence. This irrational hatred you have for the Gorn. Did you play with dinosaurs as a child and get hurt by one, was it a dinosaur film that scared you so badly it has left you with a Trauma and this hatred.

Have you considered booking an appointment with an analyst to investigate the cause of this deep seated neurosis and start you towards a cure so you can rejoin society as a constructive and well balanced friend of the Gorn. :lol:

 

[TJHairball]

TJHairball What do the costs of the Gorn work out to be if you remove the Lumbering from them?

10% higher

Because that's the figure I guessed lumbering should be worth. It's really quite arbitrary on my part to say 10%, but Lumbering seems like a significant disadvantage to me.

Specifically:

Allosaurus 170 (-Rex 195)
Velociraptor 205
Epanterias-M/K 190/200
Albertosaurus 210
Tyrannosaurus Rex 285

The Megalosaurus doesn't change, of course, and still represents a pretty awful value.

Compare it to the King Eagle, which has the same official point value - a value I happen to think is close to spot on.

You trade 12 shields for 12 hull points (bad), the plasma-R for two plasma-S with half arcs (fair enough), slide the phaser-3 arcs forward by 45 degrees (OK), then trade Cloak + Command for 2 AD of phaser-1s mounted PH/SH (horrible; those extra phaser-1s are worth maybe 20 points or so, Command+Cloak are easily worth 40 in this situation, IMO).

Oh, and there are some fiddly bits - add two shuttles and Quick Launch, add two points of labs, add a transporter, lose a tractor beam, lose Armoured - but those are much less important than losing Cloak and Command.

And the Gorn racial initiative modifier is -1 instead of +1, so it really looks quite bad.

 

[andypalmer]

True, much as I hate to admit it there's no provision for when I go up against players that are better than me :wink:

I'm not talking about player skill...

Put two 100% equally skilled players against and I can quarantee 100% certainly it's impossible to create point system that ensures games are fully balanced.

I have to disagree with this. Over time, as the tactical variations possible and known reach critical mass, balance will trend toward perfection among equally skilled players.

However, one thing to keep in mind with the natural variability of things like races and systems in the SFU, is that units, and their points value, can only be balanced against the whole (i.e., against every other unit, of all races, with the same points value), not against any individual unit. i.e., the 150 point unit may be perfectly balanced among the universe of twenty 150 point units, but when compared to a single other 150 point, it may be weaker or stronger based upon natural Rock-Paper-Scissors capability comparisons. This, however, does not make it unbalanced as IMO, the measure should be a holistic one, not a scenario based one.

 

[tneva82]

I have to disagree with this. Over time, as the tactical variations possible and known reach critical mass, balance will trend toward perfection among equally skilled players.

Balanced point system will be possible the day you can walk in a day to moon :lol:

edit: Oh sorry that's wrong. The day when either both fleets are composed of precisely same ships(but then what's the point of point values...) or every ship is identical to each other(ditto) when playing on totally flat board...Oh wait! Except even that's not balanced! For proof just look at the chess...So again: Balance: Not possible.

 

[andypalmer]

I consider balance to be: If you play 10 games, each player wins 5 of them. I take it your definition is different.

 

[Pavlov Grenadier]

I consider balance to be: If you play 10 games, each player wins 5 of them. I take it your definition is different.

Im sorry but you're both wrong. Balanced means when I win all my games against all opponents...shhessh...its like you guys dont know me :wink:

 

[tneva82]

I consider balance to be: If you play 10 games, each player wins 5 of them. I take it your definition is different.

10 games is not enough sample but I can quarantee 100% that whatever point system is used if 2 equally skilled players will face off over multiple times win rate will not be 50-50.

 

[gord314]

I agree that it is impossible to make a perfectly balanced war game with distinct factions. However, that doesn't mean we should not constantly work to improve game balance, in fact it means this work is never done.

 

[TJHairball]

I have to disagree with this. Over time, as the tactical variations possible and known reach critical mass, balance will trend toward perfection among equally skilled players.

However, one thing to keep in mind with the natural variability of things like races and systems in the SFU, is that units, and their points value, can only be balanced against the whole (i.e., against every other unit, of all races, with the same points value), not against any individual unit. i.e., the 150 point unit may be perfectly balanced among the universe of twenty 150 point units, but when compared to a single other 150 point, it may be weaker or stronger based upon natural Rock-Paper-Scissors capability comparisons. This, however, does not make it unbalanced as IMO, the measure should be a holistic one, not a scenario based one.

This. I can write you a proof that no sufficiently sophisticated miniatures wargame will have point values that meet some seemingly-reasonable sounding set of criteria (and it would look a lot like a proof of Arrow's Theorem, not coincidentally - non-transitive cycles between pairwise comparisons of units are part of what makes games interesting) - but while a perfect pointing system may be impossible, we can state fairly clearly that some point values are more reasonable than other.

I have two hypotheses about how the BCJ came to be so ridiculously underpriced as to be priced below a clearly inferior ship (the NCC). One is that playtesters were only pointing the BCJ relative to the BCH, and hadn't realized the BCH was underpriced.

The other is that some traits were effectively ignored in determining points values of some ships, and the Kirov happened to be pointed as if Command+1 just wasn't included on it.

 

[tneva82]

I agree that it is impossible to make a perfectly balanced war game with distinct factions. However, that doesn't mean we should not constantly work to improve game balance, in fact it means this work is never done.

True enough. However because of that systems like these that try to balance points with some sheet will result in more broken points than one that bases points based on playtesting.