Prev: Re: [DSII] Walker Minis Next: Re: [DS] Capacity, Points - Trying to put it all together.

DS3 points - what Jon T gets out of it all and how to realize that best (IMO)

From: "Tomb" <tomb@d...>
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 13:27:32 -0400
Subject: DS3 points - what Jon T gets out of it all and how to realize that best (IMO)

Let's take a step back. Let's think of this from an outside of game
perspective. What does DS3 buy Jon T? 

1. An update some of us players will buy. (Small revenue)
2. A chance to update the game in such a way as to attract more players
from Epic, Microarmour, other places. (Larger revenue, possibly)

So, the new version should probably be as inclusive as possible. 

So, how is it likely to be usefully implemented:

Point System (Generic):
---------------------------------

Balansive for one-off games (to the extent any point system ever works)
and strictly descriptive of in-game capabiities, making no reference to
size or weight or capacity or whatever.

This is truly generic and fits any universe and is a reasonable scenario
balance tool as well as a way to get an idea how cross genre comparisons
might work. 

Point system is strictly tactical, making no economic assumptions. 

Capacity System (Setting Dependent):
---------------------------------

Allows people to make "better" or "worse" designs. Allows people who
care to work out WYSWIG issues. Gives some useful measure for things
like bridges, cargo capacity/consumed space, etc. 

This is setting specific (depends on tech level, describes a given tech
level, describes a series of assumptions about physics/construction
doctrine, etc). 

Makes no economic assumptions nor assumptions about combat value. 

One of these capacity systems would be provided for the "default
GZGverse". Similarly, one could also provide settings for "WW2",
"Modern", "Hammer's Slammers", "etc"

Economic Points (Setting Dependent): 
-------------------------------------

Allows people to make "better" or "worse" designs. Allows people to play
campaigns. Allows differentiation between living in the colonies and at
the homeworld. 

This is setting specific (depends on tech level, describes that level,
describes assumptions about production technologies, etc.)

Makes no arguments about vehicle design or relative tactical value. 

One of these capacity systems would be provided for the "default
GZGverse". Similarly, one could also provide settings for "WW2",
"Modern", "Hammer's Slammers", "etc"

End Result:
-----------

So what is the end result? A points system for everyone that is (as much
as feasible) balansive for one off battles. Details on settings which
can be bolted on which include capacity systems and economic systems to
design vehicles (which may even be more important than tactical
capabilities, in campaigns). This allows those who want points only (to
do their own thing or build any mini) to be encompassed. It also allows
encompassing of  historical gamers, custom setting sci-fi gamers, and
people who want to play campaigns in the default Tuffleyverse. It is
probably the most inclusionary approach and therefore makes DS3 a more
attractive product to spend the time to produce for JT. 

Does this not make sense? Step outside your personal predjudices for a
moment and think about this from a perspective of attracting gamers with
different tastes than you have, and for follow on products (setting
specific). If the base system is setout with this in mind, then everyone
can pick the set of capacity rules or economic rules they wish to play
under (setting) but still have some basis for comparison for one-off
games.

Prev: Re: [DSII] Walker Minis Next: Re: [DS] Capacity, Points - Trying to put it all together.