Re: DS2 Balance and stuff.

Oerjan Ohlson wrote:
>

> >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.
>
>Not at all - from the game balance point of view. The combat value of
>the FC is multiplicative with the combat value of "the rest" of the
>vehicle, and the mobility type provides part of "the rest".

Which is why the system sensibly charges different multipliers for
different 
mobility types.

>But as I said, most players - you included, it seems ;-) - won't accept
>such a solution since it is offends their sense of realism "and damn
>the game balance" <g>.

Personal insults are not necessary. I am very cognizant of the issue of
game 
balance.  I just have a difference of opinion from you on how to achieve
it. 
I feel that the cost of the FC should be a direct function of the
quality of 
the FC, the type of weapon, and class of weapon, but NOT of the type of 
mobility or engine used, and I feel it's possible to achieve a balanced 
method of determining overall vehicle cost without making FC a
multiplier 
for the overall vehicle.

> >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.
>
>The same Stealth level buys them both the same (average) number of
>"extra shots" that they wouldn't have lived to fire if they hadn't been
>stealthed, but the MDC-armed tank can (on average) inflict more damage
>with those shots than the HVC-armed tank can. If Stealth costs the same
>for both tanks, putting it on the MDC-armed tank is better value for
>money than putting it on the HVC tank.
>
>As a very simplified example, if you call the number of extra shots "X"
>and the difference between the MDC and the HVC "Y", the MDC-armed tank
>gets "X*Y" more value out of the points spent on Stealth than the
>HVC-armed tank gets out of the *same* amount of points spent on the
>*same* level of Stealth.
>
>So yes, from the game balance point of view it does make sense. You can
>get around it in other ways, eg by balancing the HVC and MDC costs for
>*stealthed* tanks - which means that if you *don't* use Stealthed
>vehicles, MDCs will be overpriced compared to HVCs. Such a Stealth
>points cost is harder to get right than the multiplicative one - but
>since the players never get to see this "extra points cost" fewer of
>them will complain about it!
>
>From a *realism* point of view, which again is what you base your case
>on, neither of these systems make sense at all - but the points system
>isn't supposed to *be* realistic. It is supposed to reflect the actual
>combat power of the vehicles involved to allow even battles between two
>forces of the same total points value, and that's completely separated
>from any "realism".

OK, on this point I see and accept your arguement. making stealth levels
a 
multiplier for the entire vehicle WOULD enable you to balance the
advantages 
of high tech over low tech.  Again, the numbers would have to change
from 
the current system, but you are winning me over on THIS point.

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