Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

>From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
>Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>To: <gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
>Subject: Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.
>Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:08:48 -0400
>
> >>From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
> >
> >>Why?  That's the way it works in reality.
> >
> >Because, last time I checked, we were discussing the impact of
>the point
> >system on game play, NOT how well the point system reflected
>the byzantine
> >world of military expenditures.
>
>Looked to me like you were saying it was hard to swallow because
>it didn't make sense that a system attached to a
>low-tech/low-price gun would cost less than the same system
>attached to a high-tech/high-priced gun.

Actually, that wasn't my point either. I can understand a FireCon system

being more or less expensive based on the quality of weapon it's
attached 
to.  I just had a problem with basing the cost of FireCon on the cost of
the 
overall VEHICLE.

Besides, another thought struck me after I replied to you last night, 
In 
terms of military expenditures.  Hopefully, High Tech Superpower X is
going 
to have a larger military budget than the People's Republic of the
Middle of 
Nowhere.  Thus, as you pointed out, they'll be more able and willing to 
spend money on those overpriced Fancy Gadgets.	So even though the high
tech 
costs more, they can AFFORD more.  Therefore, if we look at points not
as a 
direct correlation to money, but rather as a reflection of a certain 
percentage of a country's military buying power, it could be argued that
the 
points should NOT be so widely divergent.  Again, though, in the end the

question is playability, not 100% realism.

>Okay, now we can
>agree that, while it doesn't make sense, it still happens in
>reality.  What effect it does or doesn't have on the game, I
>couldn't say.

People who expect reality to make sense end up in insane asylums. That's
the 
beauty of being a gamer - you have access to a world that runs, to some 
extent, more like you think the real world SHOULD. Ain't escapism grand?

> >If the high-tech advancements become so
> >overly expensive in points that you can't win by using them,
>then no-one WILL
> >use them, which will detract from the variety, and ultimately,
>fun of the
> >game.
>
> >
> >Did I point out that this is about a game?
>
>
>I missed that, I thought _this_ was reality...Certainly some
>people on this list have been getting stressed enough lately...

I hadn't noticed.

>    Actually, not only it is just a game, it's a game I've only
>played once, so I have no feel whatsoever for the balance.   My
>personal preference is for a mix of  anti-grav tanks armed with
>DFFG, backed up by power armor and combat walkers--but just
>because it makes sense for for what we laughingly refer to as
>our environment (vacuum, low grav, lots of radiation).  Oh--and
>because I like the idea of grav panzers and fusion guns, and
>have ever since I first ran in a Traveler campaign, nearly 20
>years ago.

Perhaps personal preference and comfort level of the player with a 
particular tech mix is just as important to successful tactics as the 
capabilities of the weapons themselves.

>   It seems to me that  the advantage of a higher grade FC ought
>to be susceptible to numerical analysis.  No, I'm not
>volunteering, but you have a limited number of combinations of
>weapons, armor, ranges, and FC's, so you should be able to plug
>in a spreadsheet and see what difference does it really make..
>

I'm mulling over an idea which would not only address the need for
FireCon 
cost to be based on the quality of weapon, but also, surprisingly
enough, 
further streamline the costing procedure.  Take a look:

Currently, you calculate weapon cost by multiplying the weapon's class
times 
a modifier based on weapon type. Thus the weapon itself IS costed based
on 
tech level.  Then you cost the FireCon by multiplying the SIZE of the
weapon 
times a modifier for FireCon quality.  Thus the Firecon Cost is based on

FireCon Quality and weapon SIZE, but not weapon TYPE.  It would be easy
to 
change that to a system that bases overall weapon system cost on Weapon 
Class, Weapon Type, and FireCon Quality, all affecting each other. Below
are 
some math equations expressing the old system and my new idea:

A = Cost modifier for weapon TYPE.
B = Cost modifier for FireCon QUALITY.
C = Weapon CLASS

X = Cost of WEAPON.
Y = Cost of FIRECON.
Z = Overall cost of weapon SYSTEM.

Current system:
X=A*C
Y=B*C
Z=X+Y

My system:
Z=A*B*C

Granted, the values for A and B may need to be tweaked some, but as you
can 
see, the overall cost for the systems would go up, especially for
High-Tech 
weapons, and the costing process would be shortened by a step.

Brian Bilderback

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