RE: [DS] Points system

At 2:59 PM -0800 4/3/02, Brian Bilderback wrote:
>
>Go back to my first post, you'll see that I did note that cargo 
>carrying was the one area in which weight/capacity would still 
>matter (OK, and bridges). THAT capacity should reflect both volume 
>and mass, especially mass.

Granted. I've just wrestled with it when trying to figure out how 
much an NAC Assault ship could carry.

>
>Yes, it should, you are correct.  But if the new engine increases 
>the power enough to increase the speed, the desired effect is 
>reached.  That engine should thus cost more.  But if we merely 
>eliminate the middle man and calxulate how much the POINTS cost 
>should be for a vehicle of given armor to go a given speed, we have 
>all the information we need _*in game terms*_.

Granted. I'm just wanting to put the cost at the end and include the 
weight calculation in there as well.

>
>No.  Dollars etc. reflect how much it costs IN REAL LIFE.  Points 
>reflects it's effectiveness in game play.  Totally separate issues.

But easily extrapolated. You could include a tech/economy factor for 
each race/nation. x.8 for NAC, x1.2 for ESU, x1 for NSL, x2 for IF, 
etc.

>
>>But you're still tied to all tracked vehicles go slow or fast.
>
>No, you're not.  If the point systems factors vehicle speed into the 
>points equation, you can design a vehicle of any armor/firepower, 
>capable of any speed, and be able to calculate how many points such 
>a vehicle should cost.  A simplistic example:
>
>Say the armor and weaponry for a given vehicle(called AW for the 
>example) cost 20 points in our imaginary system.  If you do 
>somehting as simple as multiplying this number by it's speed, you 
>get:
>
>A vehicle of X AW with a speed of 1 would cost 20 points.
>A vehicle of X AW with a speed of 2 would cost 40 points.
>A vehicle of X AW with a speed of 3 would cost 60 points.
>
>Granted, this is an example and is not my proposal for the exact 
>points method (Though it is on the right track).  But it shows my 
>point.

Ahh, but this deviates significantly from the old system. I'm trying 
to make a slight change without really making a new system that bears 
a resemblance to the system used to make Mechs in Battletech.

>Agreed,  But if you reflect that heavier engine by making it cost 
>more points, you don't need to actually calculate how much heavier. 
>In game terms, for a given vehicle to have a given armor/speed 
>combo,  you can describe it as heavier armor and a more powerful 
>engine.  You can describe it as quantum-aligned hyperceramic armor, 
>infused with magical essence and blessed by all the gods of the 17 
>realms.  As long as said vehicle costs the same amount of points no 
>matter which description applies, I'm happy.

Yeah, but that blessing has to cost extra.

-- 
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill			     '01 Honda Insight -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 			    '85 CB700S -
- ryan.gill@turner.com			 '76 Chevy Monte Carlo -
- www.mindspring.com/~rmgill		       '72 Honda CB750 -
-				      '60 Daimler FV701H Mk2/3 -
-				   '42 Daimler Scout Car Mk II -
-	      I speak not for CNN, nor they for me	       -
----------------------------------------------------------------
-    Smart ID cards in the US, Smart ID cards in Hong Kong,    -
-		      what is the difference?		       - 
----------------------------------------------------------------
-  C&R-FFL  /  Protect your electronic rights!	  \ EFF-ACLU   -
- SAF & NRA/  Join the EFF!  http://www.eff.org/   \ DoD #0780 -