Hi!
Okay, after reading the corresponding material, I'm read to give my two
cents on unit costs.
Comparative pricing, while relatively simple to employ has its problems.
The first problem is that "who" qualifies as the standard. One may give
many explanation behind selecting one or another, but in the end it's
VERY subjective. While using guardians as the standard is a good choice,
the same could have been said of an IG tactical platoon or Evil Sunz
Boys mob.
Second, "what" constitutes "useful" is also open to interpretation. For
example I have run into many players saying pulsa rokkits "suck", yet
for me they are one of the most important and devastating ork weapons.
The list would be interminable if I asked group members for similar
examples, Therefore one player may assign one value in accordance to
usefulness and others another entirely different one.
Third, as Jar pointed out it does not cover certain units like titans
and such. What ever is used we need to include EVERYTHING, because we
run the risk of balancing some and not others. While a comparative
method is great for units of similar type it breaks down with units of
very different types. This would mean we need to use a comparative
standard in each category for balance. Unfortunately it would not
balance the standards of two different categories. For example if the
standard is a guardian for infantry and a reaver is standard for titans,
how do the guardian and reaver relate in power? A comparative method
makes it difficult.
To be frank I believe only the cold hardness of math will do. Yes, I
know, that is not perfect either, but has more objectiveness to it than
any other method. The unbalance of a points system generally comes from
the under/over appreciation of a certain skill. IF teleport is really
good and you cost it low, then the points cost comes unbalanced.
Birol made his formulas in a backwards fashion. He tried to deduce the a
formula that corroborated the GW values. Note however this isn't a great
approach since it's a matter of fact that GW doesn't even used a
balanced comparative method to cost their units, thus the disparity of
cost to effect with many epic units.
I think the answer, as it often does, lies with a combination of Birol's
formulas and Jar's effectiveness "standard". I think we should use the
formulas but update them by rating the effectiveness of skills and
powers by Jar's method of effectiveness.
Overall I don't want any more cheap units, it only brings arguments and
dissent, I have seen this more than enough times over the years. I want
things to cost what they deserve, but have an objective standard, beyond
"I think this is good", like GW does. I think we can do it, I'll let
others mash something together.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jarreas Underwood [mailto:jarreas_at_...]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:28 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs
Last week I said:
>>I submit my existing file, "Proposed Core Army Cards & Costs",
>>currently in the Files section. Please take a look at it and
>>let me know what you think.
This week I receive:
>Hard and fast formulas do not work
and
>NO mathematical formula can possibly manage to calculate ALL aspects of
an
army in a fair manner.
Apparently no one's bothered to go *look* at my proposal. If you had
you'd
have found that I didn't use a formula to come up with unit costs. On
the
off-chance you're interested, here's what I did:
I used a comparative usefulness scale - the Eldar Guardian is the
baseline
and costs 150 points for a detachment of 6. All other units are compared
to
that one. I didn't do big things (Super-Heavies, Titans, etc) as the
units
aren't comparable - I stuck with the existing prices for them.
Each characteristic (size, move, CAF, armor, weapons, morale, special)
is
compared to the baseline. Ratings are "Poor", "Average", "Good" and
"Special". Better abilities cost more, lesser abilities cost, well...
less.
Examples:
Eldar Guardian Detachment: Size:Average, Move:Average, Armor:None,
CAF:Average, Weapons:Average, Morale:Average = 150 points.
IG Tactical Detachment: Size:Big(+50), Move:Average, Armor:None,
CAF:Average, Weapons:Average, Morale:Average = 200 points.
SM Tactical Detachment: Size:Average, Move:Average, Armor:Good(+25),
CAF:Good(+25), Weapons:Average, Morale:Good(+25), Special: (Rhinos +25)
=
250 points.
SM Terminator Detachment: Size:Small(-50), Move:Average,
Armor:Heavy(+50),
CAF:Lots(+50), Weapons:Average, Morale:Good(+25), Special: (Elite +25),
(fires twice +25), (L.Raiders +75)= 350 points.
See how it works? I don't get into specific weapons, save mods or CAF
numbers - I use comparative usefulness based on what I've read, heard
and
seen in playtesting. The vast majority of my costs equal the existing
ones,
and the changes I suggest are (IMHO) minor. Please, before you slag my
ideas, at least look at them.
-Yar
To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe_at_egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Received on Mon May 13 2002 - 18:02:01 UTC