Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

>Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>

>Very true. FCSs and Stealth really should be paid for as percentages of
>the (rest of the) vehicle's cost much like Back-up systems already are,
>but it is rather tricky to do this with FCSs - most players won't
>accept that the Superior FCS for a HKP/5 on a cheap tank is cheaper
>than the Superior FCS for another HKP/5 on an expensive tank :-/

And I would probably agree with them - to an extent.  I WOULD agree to a

point system which tied FireCon cost to the weapon TYPE as well as to
it's 
size class - a Superior FireCon on an MDC 5 does have more effect on the

game than a Superior FireCon on a HVC 5, and as such should cost more. 
But 
having to pay even MORE for the same FireCon because it's mounted on a
Grav 
Tank instead of a Slow Tracked? Now I think you're being overly harsh. 
As 
for the stealth levels, they're already double costed, because they're 
costed for both the levels and the size of the vehicle (Level 1 stealth
on a 
class 1 vehicle is cheaper than level 1 stealth on a class 5 vehicle). 
This 
does make sense, because it takes more to hide a larger vehicle. But it 
doesn't seem to make sense to charge me even MORE for stealth if I mount
a 
MDC than if I mount an HVC.  If you base FireCon and Stealth costs on
the 
overall vehicle cost, this is exactly what you'd be doing.

Some might argue that higher tech levels would actually render better 
FireCon and stealth easier to achieve and thus cheaper.  Someone already

mentioned the flatter arc and better accuracy of a gauss weapon.  A
weapon 
that is already fairly accurate BEFORE you add FireCon shouldn't then be

forced to pay MORE to make itself accurate than an inferior weapon does.
 
And with stealth, it could be argued that the signature of a vehiclehas
to 
do not only with it's sheer size, but in it's emissions - how hot it's 
engine is, etc.  Perhaps HMT's run cooler than CFE's, perhaps it's
easier to 
baffle a FGP, I don't know, maybe they DO look hotter than their
low-tech 
cousins.  On the other hand, maybe Anti-Grav drives give off some sort
of 
funky gravitic signature that's easier to detect and harder to mask.  In
the 
end, with stealth, there's so many variables we could fritter the game
away 
on them.

Besides, what it comes down to, ans both you gentlemen have pointed out,
is 
impact on the game.  And while I agree that typing FireCon costs into
both 
the quality of the FireCon AND the quality of the weapon would be both
fair 
and workable, I do object to basing the cost of the FireCon on factors
other 
than the weapons it controls.

Not to mention the conundrum of: Do you calculate the rest of the
vehicle 
cost, then base FireCon on THAT number, then base Stealth on the NEW
number, 
or vice versa? Should Stealth affect FireCon, or should Firecon affect 
Stealth?

>OTOH, for systems like ECM or PDS which only defend against certain
>specific threats, multiplicative PV effects usually aren't very
>successful since it rapidly makes high-tech vehicles *REALLY*
>expensive. In such cases additive PVs work better.

This I agree with.

Brian Bilderback
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com