Re: [DS] Points system (fresh)

Ryan M Gill wrote:

>Well, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than a basic tank
>chassis 5 times larger.

That's oversimplifying and probably completely missing my point.  You're

right, a basic jeep chassis shouldn't cost more than the basic tank
chassis. 
  But we're talking about more than just the basic chassis, we're
talking 
about the end vehicle.	If, after loading weapons, armor, FireCon,
systems, 
and stealth on to the two vehicles, you get two vehicles with identical 
performance, firepower, armor, and both have the same chance of being
hit 
(signature), then the end products should cost the same amount,
REGARDLESS 
of what "Basic chassis" you started with.

The Pink Bicycle vs the camo'd tank is
>spurious.

Probably, but it was cute, no?

>In addition to the whole signature thing is the difficulty in hiding
>it in the first place. I can lay the pink bicycle down in the grass
>and you won't see it 50 feet away let alone across the field. That
>tank, isn't going to be put into a little tuft of grass and be
>invisible.

Unless of course the tank has a cloaking device. or you mount a homing 
beacon on the bike. ;-) The point was, what really matters is signature,
not 
actual size, when determining the vehicle's value.

>If I make a battle ship have the same signature as a pt boat it
>should cost the same? I don't think so. That BB has far more combat
>capability being carried around than that MTB.

Which is completely irrelevant to my point.  I said that two vehicles of

identical performance should have identical costs, and that whether this
is 
done through miniaturization or stealth is PSB, unneccesary to the
design 
proces in game terms.  To use the BB/PT example, Pretend for argument's
sake 
that the BB is an old WWII BB, with it's armor, guns, and speed/range 
exactly as in WWII, but someone's added a stealth "cloaking device" that

gives it the target signature of a PT.	Let's go further and say the PT
has 
no stealth, so it has the same signature, but it has alien armor and 
weapons, all of which are capable, despite their size, of delivering as
much 
damage at the same ranges and accuracy as, say, a WWII BB, and that the
PT 
has the same speed and range as, say, a WWII BB.  If that were the case,

YES, they SHOULD both cost the same amount in game terms.

>A stealthed size 5 tank should cost far more than a size 1 personal
>vehicle.

Not IF the "size 1" vehicle has an identical speed/armor/firepower due
to 
miniaturization, etc.

A stealthed size 2 vehicle should cost a good deal more
>than
>that size 1 vehicle.

See above.

>Furthermore, that size/stealth/capacity step allows for a good means
>of describing the vehicle.

If you want to allow for sizes to help in identification, determining
bridge 
capacity, or cargo requirements, go for it.  But that doesn't require a 
whole construction system based on the size.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: