|
Post by zephyr40k on Aug 14, 2013 19:20:16 GMT -5
I'm going with the "Dwarven Vulcan" theory, myself. OK so here's an idea. It sounds like one of the problems is that upgrades like Skill don't scale with the total cost of the model. So a skill upgrade for a 20-point scout buggy and a 80-point superheavy both cost 3 extra points. So how about this: a 2-stage vehicle pointing system? Step 1: Add up the points of the baser systems. Hull/fuselage, locomotion, weapons. That's strictly additive. Step 2: Now throw on all the upgrades. These are things like Mods, and skill upgrades. The total cost will be the base cost from step 1 multiplied by a factor determined in step 2. Example: Let's say we design a tank. Step 1 gets us 40 points as a base cost. We now have a tank with average stats and no Modz. Now we add a few things: Skill upgrade from "average" to "Veteran": +1/4 Modz upgrade "gravitic accelerators: +1/4 Mods downgrade "slow": -1/4 Total modifier +1/4 So the final vehicle cost is 40 x 1.25 or 50 points. This means that upgrading expensive vehicles is proportionately more expensive. (I know, this doesn't address FA, but I still haven't crunched the numbers on that yet.)
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 15, 2013 11:29:57 GMT -5
Zephyr40k – I think you identified some of the key items which need additional thought and I would even offer a couple more. I spent the last few months recreating a points system and trying to identify the key factors in some of the points imbalance that have been part of the dialogue on the forum. In my opinion the major items for focus are: 1) Weapon points values 2) Attribute points values (shoot, guard, etc) 3) Skill/Modz point values
I would also suggest that the order is important. Each item is complex is its own right and has a surprising impact on the probabilities in the game.
I should note that I really don’t use points when I set up games other than a very general comparison. I did the following exercises out of some kind of OCD that only my wife can adequately describe.
Like inrepose mentioned, the escalating weapon costs didn’t seem to reflect the increased capabilities when you place any specific weapon on a larger and larger platform (e.g. light vs medium vs. larger, etc). Since a weapon is more survivable and able to generally effect the game more as the platform increases it was apparent either the weapon or the platform needed a point boost. Try playing matchups with big differences in platform but same points (e.g. super heavy walkers against a few medium walkers, or tanks, etc), it’s not even close.
I essentially redid the points for specialist and light weapons. I also reduced the light laser damage by a couple points. After much playtesting of the as-written FA rules I decided the point values for full auto weapons needed to be multiplied by the average number of shots. The up-side is a cheap four shot turn and the down-side is an expensive two shot turn. It wasn’t as simple as adjusting the FA ‘skill’ because of the platform and other issues (like skill of the firer, etc).
To address the platform concerns I simply multiplied cost by 1.5 for each successive platform. For example, light weapon X is 10 points. Medium weapon X is now 15 points. Large weapon X is now 23…
I input all these new weapon costs into the Card building spreadsheet and played a number of match-ups. Essentially I tried out a bunch of combinations of weapon types on different platforms and played or calculated the end results. What became immediately apparent was the single biggest factor in weapon/platform effectiveness was the attributes (shoot, guard, etc). In fact, shoot and guard are really the key.
Interestingly, zephyr40k noted almost the same modifier I discovered. I think we can all agree that the primary way we effect the game is shoot each other. The two primary factors in that probability are shoot skill and guard.
You cannot address the point impact of ‘shoot’ without also addressing ‘guard’ since a one point increase in shoot is canceled by a one point increase in guard. The point cost of these differences is negligible compared to increased odds of hitting opponents or avoiding return fire.
After getting a new point baseline for the weapons I started playtesting different skill combinations to see the impact. The results of this and the typical percentage bands inherent with the 2D6 mechanic led me to postulate a compounding 20% rule.
I used a shoot skill of 4 and a guard of 11 a base. The means a normal range zero cover shot has a 58% chance of success. For each point of skill over 4 and guard over 11 I applied a compounding 20%. For example, a 50 point tank with skill of 6 is actually 72 points.
All I can say is try it out. The simple reality has been that otherwise equal forces with seemingly small differences in skill (or guard) are not comparable.
I built a super fast drone and light mecha force (lots of 15 guard but only 4 skill units) as a city occupation army and completely wiped the table of a medium mechanized force that almost doubled my point value. The difference in guard alone made my effective shoot skill 2-3 points higher than my opponent. I was hitting on 6-7s and he was hitting on 9-10s. I math hammered the crap out if later and confirmed my suspicion.
For a tank, the difference in seasoned vs. expert (4 vs. 6) shoot skill only costs 5 points (10% of a 50 point tank). The difference to hit in the middle 2D6 distribution band (lets’ say an 6 vs. 8) is 72% vs 42%, increasing the chance to hit quite a bit. If I add a 3 point mod (active camo, the difference is three points and the new percentages are 72% vs. 28%. That almost triples the hit chances at a ‘cost’ increase of 15%.
If you want to mathematically improve your odds of winning, just maximize skill and any modz which increase guard. From a point efficiency viewpoint, it’s unbeatable. I’ll have to grab it from home but I’ll post the excel file with modified points values I experimented with. I haven’t really delved into the Perkz and Modz issue as it requires a ton of play test to gauge any changes. I would suggest that any shoot or guard modifications also incur a cost modifier (e.g. 20%) not a simple point cost.
Sorry for the long post. I’ve been quiet for the last few months because I was working on this very issue for my local gaming group. I didn’t come forward as I thought it was a dead issue. Squinch
edit - oops, I used the wrong endof the 2D6 percentage curve, corrected the % to hit numbers
|
|
|
Post by comstar on Aug 15, 2013 12:53:35 GMT -5
That's a great start keep at it as this may alleviate some of the issue people have with the points system.
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Aug 15, 2013 18:41:55 GMT -5
Great ideas and suggestions Zephyr40K and Squinch!!! Squinch, I'm very interested in your excel file and am looking forward to you making it available to us to have a look at, thanks
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 16, 2013 10:06:40 GMT -5
TGB- Here is the file I used. It was an early attempt to creat cards for playtesting the revised weapon values. I started to mess with attribute (shoot, guard, etc) but gave up and started doing the 20% rule after the cards were printed. I will also scan a weapon table printout that I think has a more current version of my points work-up. Enjoy! Army Builder v2.0 squinch mods.ods (40.02 KB) Squinch
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Aug 16, 2013 20:29:23 GMT -5
Thanks for that Squinch, much appreciated. I may have to wait for the scan however, as the file extension of this Army Builder v2.0 file does not open on my PC.
|
|
|
Post by squinch on Aug 16, 2013 23:43:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by twogunsblazing on Aug 17, 2013 0:08:26 GMT -5
Thanks for that Squinch I've just downloaded it and gave it a quick test and it works fine. I'll have a real good look at this tonight once the kids are all in bed...thanks for sharing!
|
|
|
Post by iqojadepisa on Dec 4, 2019 18:42:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eyibelix on Dec 4, 2019 19:50:21 GMT -5
|
|