Hi,
Its not just a matter of weighting some characteristics and making a cost.
Some characteristics become good because of other characteristics.
Like say, +4 CAF isnt a great advantage in a unit which can move max
10cms per turn, but if it had 30cms, the CAF would suddenly start
to matter. Likewise, a 25cm weaponsrange isnt much, but if you hit
on a 3+, and have 30 move, its pretty darn good.
Rune
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jarreas Underwood" <jarreas_at_...>
To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 12:16 AM
Subject: RE: [NetEpic ML] RE: Unit Point Costs
> 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
>
>
>
> 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 Tue May 14 2002 - 07:34:26 UTC