RE: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Gill [mailto:rmgill@mindspring.com]
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:59
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Cc: John Crimmins
Subject: Re: [DS] No Capacity was: Points system (fresh)

At 12:26 PM -0500 4/5/02, John Crimmins wrote:
>
>I don't believe that the purpose of the point system is to "award" 
>or "penalize" anything -- its purpose is to provide a rough sense of 
>balance for those
>concerned about such things.

But it does work that way.

[Bri] But it should!

>
>Using	Andy Cowell's on-line DSII generator, the costs for the 
>sample tanks are  64 points for Vehicle A, and 138 points for 
>Vehicle B

And if vehicle B has an enhanced PDS, a ECM system, ADFV and 
additional components filling in that space, then shouldn't it still 
be more than vehicle A?

[Bri] But if you add an enhanced PDS, a ECM system, ADFC and additional
components to _both_ vehicles, should not _both_ vehicles increase in
cost
by the _same_ ammount?

>...which illustrates the point nicely, I think.  Two vehicles with 
>identical performance, but one costs a little more than *twice* as 
>much as the other.

Because the assumption is that if you build a vehicle with additional 
capacity, it will be used. You're leaving this big empty box on the 
back of this tank and saying it doesn't have a combat value. Thats 
true. But if you stuff additional components into that tank then 
you've got a better tank.

[Bri] But the subject of this tread was a point system _without_ a
capacity
system. If you use just a point system, then size should not matter. If
you
use a capacity system (or other device as a constraint on the design
system)
it (or the constraint) should penalize building ineffecient vehicles.
But,
again, that was the whole arguement for the points-only system (that
points
reflect the capability of the vehicle, and points were the only
constraint).

Now, I would approach all of this from a different direction. I'd 
build a cost system in that would allow miniaturization of types of 
weapons making them take up lower amounts of capacity for a given 
cost. It builds on the system and allows you to get what you are 
looking for.

I have a problem with the fact that you're squishing two things 
together and saying they are the same when they are not. Size =! 
apparent signature.

[Bri] True. Size <> signature. However, size has _NO_ game effect, but
signature _does_. Thus, signature should effect points, and size should
not.

-- 
--