RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs

From: Jarreas Underwood <jarreas_at_...>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 18:16:22 -0400

After seeing the discussion on cost standardization, I've decided to see
what I can do to update Birol's math-based analysis and integrate it with a
usefulness-based cost. Before I start, I'd like some feedback on a few of
the ammumptions I'm making.
-Yar


 1) I'm going to concentrate on Imperial, Eldar and Ork troops. These are
the ones I have the best 'feel' for, and if we agree on a system for them
we can extrapolate to the other armies.


 2) Most armies have something unique about them, and a corresponding
disadvantage. I'm not going to consider these when creating specific costs
- units will be analyzed in the absence of anything around them (like Hive
Mind or Command Radius). If you think that the army is unbalanced because
of their bonus / penalty, let me know but let's take that up as a separate
discussion. The army list is at the end of this email.


 3) I'm going to try to stay at or near existing costs. What we've got now
works well, and I don't want to change things if I don't have to. I'm doing
this so we can identify 'broken' units and fix those, not overhaul the
entire cost system.
 As a side note, I'm going to round costs to the nearest 50 points. I'm
lazy and I don't like the miniscule work that counting in 25's creates.
Before you jump all over me, I will include a 'rounded to nearest 25'
column in my price list. We can vote on which to make official later.


 4) I'm staying away from Titans. I'll analyze just about everything else,
but Titans have too much variation and too many special rules. The existing
weapons can be broken down, and perhaps the hull cost extrapolated from
that, but I have the feeling I'm going to be leaving that for someone else.
Especially when you consider trying to analyze Gargants and Bio-Titans... ugh.


 5) I'm going to use this opportunity for shameless self-promotion. I've
supported the SM 5+ armor save, as well as a few other things, so I'll be
calculating costs based on my preferences. This will all be presented as an
Excel file and I'll be highlighting everything that's different from the
NetEpic 4 rules. I might easily be talked into giving both versions in the
first place.


 6) Ok - here's where it gets ugly. I need to know how to weight each
characteristic (Move, CAF, etc.) and ability (Stealth, Medic, etc.). Please
send me private email (jarreas_at_...) on how valuable you think
the various characteristics and abilities are. I'm not looking for anything
beyond "these are all about equal, those are much more valuable and that
bunch aren't much use at all." I'll be factoring in your replies to
determine the cost weighting for units. I figure 1-10 points for a minor
ability, 10-20 for nice ones, and 25+ for a really nifty one like a psychic
power. Thanks in advance.

 Characteristics: Move, Armor Save, Fixed Armor Save, Psychic Save, CAF,
Morale, Weapons (dice, range, To-Hit, TSM), etc.

 Abilities: Jumper, Skimmer, Flier, Pinning Class, Independent, Medic,
Technician, Psychic powers, Stealth, Command, HQ, Sniper, Fearless, Fear,
Terror, OTV, Regeneration, etc, etc, etc.



+++++ Army Advantage <=> Disadvantages

PDF: Chain of Command, must set up first <-> expanded setup area, free
fortifications & Objectives, may change terrain around

Imperial Guard: Chain of Command <-> best diversity of forces in the game

Space Marines: All right, so there's not much in the army advantage /
disavantage catagory here - what do you expect? Marines don't have
disadvantages.

Titan Legions: titan battle groups <-> lousy support choices

Eldar: low break points <-> free stuff

Ork: Nob command radius <-> Mekboy cards, best tanks / vehicle choices in game

Chaos: poor firepower troops, limited support selections <-> Chaos Cards,
incredibly good core units (Greater Daemons)
+++++ I haven't played or fought Chaos, so I don't know if this is
balanced. Is it?

Squats: cheap Praetorians, high Break Points <-> ?

Tyranid: Hive Mind radius <-> Hive Mind Cards

Slaan: No idea.


>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
Received on Mon May 13 2002 - 22:16:22 UTC