Hi!
"Standardize" a word of dread or relief, depends on who you ask. We seem
to agree on standardizing certain weapons, but not points costs. Hard to
understand. I realize many don't like a lot of change, that's okay. But
I find it funny that we accept GW's original rules and stats so readily
when we KNOW they are not well thought out nor tested. I don't view a
coherent plan for points cost as standardization, but a necessary step
to put some reality in a points system that has none.
Note we don't need to change anything, but those few units that people
have a problem is, thing is when it comes time to change it, what
objective criteria will we use? There is none. If we use a comparative
scheme, we might as well use Jar's, at least his makes sense, whereas
GW's scheme does not.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rune Karlsen [mailto:rune.karlsen6_at_...]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 3:46 PM
To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs
The dreaded day has come :)
Seriously though, i dont want to see any standardizing of unit costs.
Even if we consider army characteristics, and rate powers and size
with "average", "powerful" or whatever, it simply wont work.
I like the idea, at least i did in the beginning when i started playing
Epic. I thought that all units should cost the same as comparable units.
Ive realized that this will lead not only to alot of arguing, but the
result
will be dubious at best. Some times you can take a thing that works, and
make it better. Other times you will make it worse, even though your
intentions were good. I do agree that the free units/cards/powers some
armies get should cost something. The idea of having free units take a
special card slot seems good. When it comes to cards (mekboy repair
cards etc.), the units which give the cards could be priced without
cards,
and given the option to "buy" a set number of cards. Cards could then
be priced in several categories according to power (this is again hard
to
define, but we'd only really need 2 or 3 categories). Thus, when you
choose to buy 2 cards of "category 2", you would pick at random from
the "category 2" pile. The good thing about this, is that you know
you're
getting what you pay for, even though you cant choose the exact card you
want.
The drawback is that you have to pay for power. If you want the "good
stuff", you have to pay for it. You can no longer luck out, and pick
great cards at random. You will never bum out either though, as your bad
karma wont affect the card draw that much any more :) You'd still get
a decent random result from the draw, although it will be weighted in
the fashion you prefer. If you want few, but powerful cards, you will
have to take less units to get them, and vice versa. The more i think
about
it, the more i like this idea. Hopefully, im not the only one :)
Rune
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Ramos" <primarch_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:02 PM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs
> 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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
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 - 21:23:31 UTC