SV: DS2 Balance and stuff.

Brian Bilderback wrote:

>>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.

Certainly. But just like the Stealth level, a better mobility type lets
the better FCS do more with the extra fire opportunity types than a
worse FCS could. The coupling isn't as strong as for Stealth (player
skill comes into the mobility/FCS relation as well), but it is still
there. 

If the points system doesn't take it into account, you need to decide
which mobility type you want to balance each specific weapon+FCS
combination for - in which case it needs to be overpriced on vehicles
with other types of mobilities. I tend to dislike such points systems
in rules sets which claim to be "generic", since they strongly
influence the players to conform to the same weapon/ mobility comboes
that the designer had in mind when balancing the system. They're OK in
a rules set designed for a specific background.

(Before anyone points out that the FB2 Kra'Vak in particular are
designed in exactly this way: No, I don't consider FB2 to be as generic
as FB1 or FT2... and judging from the "Combining Different Alien
Technologies" on p.3, neither does St^3 Jon :-/ )

>>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 added the smilies and grins to try and defuse any insult <g> 

More seriously though: Both your counter-arguments were based on
background universe realism issues rather than points-value game
balance ones, which made them quite illustrative examples of what I
meant. It wasn't hard at all to see why Laserlight thought you were
talking about realism rather than game balance.

[snip Stealth discussion]
 
>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, 

Oh, certainly. The change would be at least as radical as that between
FT2 and FB1 - the entire spaceship design system was re-made from
scratch in FB1. OK, the final FB1 points costs and overall abilities
for different ship classes ended up fairly similar to the FT2 ones, but
the values placed on the various component systems are very different
in the two rule sets.

>but you are winning me over on THIS point.

<g>

Oerjan Ohlson
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
- Hen3ry