Dwight and Scott.

Well - I don't have my ship contruction manuel online - its mainly in scribbled notes on paper, so I can't share it without going to quite a bit of work. Scott's system does have some loopholes - the main one I can spot is that there is too much space allowed per ship class, but I really like the idea of shock ratings for weapons - its much more elegant than the system I had of simply limiting the number of heavy weapon slots, where some weapons used more than 1 slot.

My system is fundamentally based on a technology tree. Without explianing everything, here is an outline for a race starting with "200" technology points.

Set 1 Randomisers #+15 Tech bonus overall

1) good leaders (legendary officers more likely)
2) Non fighter race.
3) Forward Hull bias
4) Minimal engine bias
5) Forward shield strength.

(3-5 could be removed)

Set 2 Randomisers - Forced technology presets.

#15 Tech spent on Phas-1
#5 spent on Hellbores
#10 spent on Interceptors
#5 spent on phaser arc technology.

(I found that simply increasing the costs for better arcs did not work very well, so introduced a system where each arc uses X number of arc points, and each phaser you buy contributs Y number of arc points into your total pool. Arc technology incresed Y).

Remaining expenditure
Hellbores #70 (+5 bonus from above)
50% Phas-1 #15 (+15 bonuse from above)
APR level-2 #20 (20 discount for hellbores)
Shield tech 2 #20
Size tech 4 #50
Arc tech 1 #5 (+5 bonus from above)

Starting ship types randomised as FF (1/3), DD (1/2), and CA (1)

1st number is #boxes on SSD
2nd number is space used
3rd number is cost

FRIGATE

WARP 10/10 /80 (2*5 point engines)
IMP 1 /1 /6
APR 3 /3 /13 (18 with no APR tech)
BTTY 1 /0.5/2

SHTL 1 /0.5/4
CNT 3 /3 /18 (Control boxes)
LAB 4 /2 /16
TRAN 2 /1 /4
TRAC 1 /0.5/3
PRB 1 /1 /2

HULL 10/10 /10

HLBR 1 /2 /16
P-1 1 /1 /12
P-2 1 /1 /6
P-3 2 /1 /10

TOTAL MASS - 37.5 (Each size tech increases this allowance by 0.5 for a frigate)
TOTAL COST - 202 (will get discounted as more firgates of this class are built)

DERIVATIVES FROM HULL BOXES
Turn mode B
HET 5-6
Endurance 6 (could be used for various campaign and supply parameters - 6 is normal)
Maximum Crew 10 (Marines are 1/2 a crew IIRC)

DERIVATIVES FROM CONTROL BOXES AND SIZE CLASS
Command rating - 3

DERIVATIVES FROM CONTROL AND LAB BOXES
DamCon 2/2/0
Sensor 6/5/4/2/0
Scanner 0/1/3/5/9

DERIVATIVES FROM SIZE CLASS, CONTROL BOXES AND SHIELD TECH

1 shield - 15
2/6 shield - 13
3/5 shield - 9
4 shield - 7

(note that you do not pay anything for shields. I found that I ALWAYS wanted to maximise the shields anyway, so paying X per box was pointless)

DERIVATIVES FROM PHASERS AND ARC TECH

P-1 FA
P-2 RX
P-3 LS/RS
(Hellbore restricted to 120 deg - FA)

I defy anyone to call that munchkin. And it's pretty difficult to reshuffle the spaces so that you can do anything extreme - there is little room for manoeuver above the core essentials.

By derivitising some functions from others, you increase the importance of Labs, control, and especially hull. Otherwise, I found that these boxes tended to become "as few as possible". If you are playing a full campaign, Lab,tran, endurance, and trac (and special sensors) may become important in exploration/exploitation procedures as well.

By Ken Burnside (Ken_Burnside) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:21 am: Edit

I have found one, and only one, way to make "balanced and fun" custom ships.

Sell weapons at an auction. I do this for charity games.

http://www.logrus.com/sfb/charity/charity_index.html

It's something simialr to the kitbash method above, except that it doesn't use fixed BPVs for weapons, it uses the market price for weapons as derived by your fellow players.

For Dv, everything in engineering has a trade-off. Reactors produce power and heat, heat sinks store heat, batteries store power, and balancing between the three gets tricky. Then there's storing fuel, and putting armor on the hull.

The number, size and firing arcs of weapon slots are fixed by the ship template, and how ships take damage is programmed into the ship template. Weapon costs are an aggregate cost of average damage at each hex in their range bracket, multiplied by the number of shots each weapon gets in a (typical) 12 turn game.

The point here is that in DV, the entire game is built around the ship construction method, and I wasn't afraid to do some heavy lifting on the underlying math to make it balanced. S

FB has too many undefined variables to make a complete ship construction manual, because any set of design rules other than "Will this ship be fun to fly against its historical opponent?" will let you build the 16 gating phaser ship with a 30 box center warp engine, engine doubling, and two Ion Pulse Generators and go dig a hole in something.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:31 am: Edit

David: I am a little confused, is this a random ship/race generator? How do you get BPV's?
The technology tree idea is intriguing, how does that work?

I never thought about the maximum spaces per hull class, I just added them up for multiple races and used the largest ones for a maximum.

The entire point of my system was to allow you to do anything you wanted, as long as you payed the appropriate BPV. If you wanted a super CL, fine, but you would be fighting a fleet.

By John Trauger (Vorlon) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:21 am: Edit

Scott, Chad,

Simply cap the number of transporters and move on.

Any number of systems seem subject to race and class-based limitations: hull, transporters, tractors, Labs to name four.

Racial parameters can be set for these, along with the ability to overpack a given system into a ship at extra cost.

The primary flaw with Graw's CDS (I could post some of my designs if you like Pierre, but they only use the CDS from SFT #1. I've never seen #3) is that his ships start out with "stock" weapons loadouts and THEN you get to add more (albeit at an increasing cost) and with little controls on adding foreign technology.

Example: As P-1 costs escalate, it eventually becomes less costly to add a P-G. Ships come out with a mongrel pedigree because you can skim a few weapons of each type for less than the cost of diving into your own race's stuff deeply.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:25 am: Edit

Ken: A very interesting idea on a ship construction "campaign" type theme. While this is wonderful for the context you have it in, I do not see how useful this would be in overall ship construction as it is too constrained, does not produce BPV's etc. The 16 gatling phaser beast you described would cost over 240 BPV in my system, with FA only gats, increase the arcs and you are looking at over 260. This would be a real problem on a closed map, but on an open one I do not see it being imposible to beat, it is fighting a CX after all and has no ranged firepower.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:26 am: Edit

Scott.

The techonlogy tree was very complex, written before the SFB campaign module. I would have to write it all out for it to be clear. However, you could more or less plug in technology into any area - the only ones with significant prerequisites were PFs (enormous, fast drones, and fighters requiring ship-based weapons first. Penalties applied if you tried to develop 3 or more heavy weapons.
The technology tree was also the key to preventing munchkin ships, as it imposed severe limitations on your ship construction. If you just impose a simple space limit per size class, you can be sure that a player will always put as many systems as possible in a ship. This frequently results (in other design systems and possibly in yours) with CA-class ships having X-ship power levels. It is always best to pack as much as possible onto the same hull unless you pay a penalty for doing so, even given your argument above. I mean - why have a 90 box MC1 ship if you can have a 90 box MC 2/3 ship?????
The random genorators at the start were to provide variety. Else everyone would have all centre-hull ships, or some preset ratio. They slanted you a certain way without committing you, and really only have a (deliberatly) minor effect overall.

As to BPV, I wasn't trying to represent it too much. The construction costs of the DD and CA of the same race were 310 and 538 respectively, although the CA has a 10% size surcharge. These are *economic* costs (think F&E), not BPV. BPV would be approximately this economic cost divided by 4.

To give an example of how the tech tree works a bit better, here is the Federation at rougly Y167. These techs can build the Fed CA.

Randomisers set 1, and mods to tech points available (this would need to be balanced).

Physically weak (+10), Good manufacturing(-25), Good explorers(-10), Fighter race (+5), Active traders (-10).

2nd set randomisers would give bonuses to the Fed weaponry suite, inclining them that direction.

Tech expenditure

Photon - 95
Phas-1 50% - 30
Phas-1 100% - 80 (50% prereq)

Type I drn, Rack A, Drn contrl = sens rat - 25
(Prereq for all drone options and ADDs)
G rack - 15
ADD 6 -15
Type IV drones - 5
Type III drones - 15
Type VI drones - 10
MW drones - 30
ATG - 15
2*sensor control - 15
Speed 12 drones -20
Speed 20 drones -40 (speed 12 prereq)

Total on drones - 205
Total on weapons - 410

Hull tech 5 - 55 (cost 10/10/10/10/15) (makes your hull count as 5 boxes more on a CA to count towards breakdown, extra crew, Turn mode, etc. Klingons have very high hull tech).
Phaser Arc tech 1 - 10
Size tech 4 - 50 (cost 10/10/15/15)
Shield tech 5 - 55 (cost 10/10/10/10/15)

Total on base ship improvements - 170

Shuttles (I'm not quite sure where the feds were at 168, so this is a guess)

extraP-3 5
one 360degP-3 10
Size-12 22 (costs 3/3/3/3/5/5 from size 6)
Speed-12 26 (costs 3/3/3/5/5/7 from speed 6)
chaff-20
2 drone rails - 10 each
2 dogfight rails - 8 each
2 drones fired/turn 10

Total on Shuttles 129

(at least 15% of total had to be spent because the feds are a fighter race).

Total tech = 709.

NB in order to offset the huge costs of drones, getting fast drones gives you a big bonus towards development of PFs/booster packs.

NNB - there are some gliches. I have just realised that ECM drones and armoured drones ought to be mentioned. Sigh...

By Chad Calder (Hades_Minion) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:05 pm: Edit

Scot,

1. Did read Ken post about the player who would argue to the N-degree to be allowed to use his ship? This is the reason most people don't want a contruction manuel. You can't assume that the players are going to be reasonable.

2. You aren't seriously argueing that the ship I created is balanced are you? You don't really believe that the ability to go speed 31 with all your weapons armed is balanced against plasma and to a lesser extent drones opponents?

3. The reason I say it can defeat the frax is that it can have more shield reinforcement then 4 disruptors hitting from range 15 and can't be hit by normal load photons because of the shift. ie it will take 0 shield damage from long range. ie even if you Narrow fire all your heavy weapons and roll a 1 your not getting through the reinforcement. (also note that the ship would have 25 transporters ie 6 on the BCH standard +19 more.)

4. It can defeat many Battleships because transports are protected by most other systems on the DAC and battleship are SLOW and with 2 ph-Gs it can destory 1 PLasma-S or 7 drones a turn without using the ph-1s. With a guarentied 2 shift battleships have little chance of doing enough damage to getting to the Transporters before range 5.

However this is besides the point if I can even ARGUE that a 180-190 BPV ship has a good chance of defeating a 350+ BPV ship then something is VERY wrong.

(If it makes you feal any better I though of a few more ships that can defeat this ship... the B10A, C9A, etc.)

By Mark Kuyper (Mark_K) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:36 pm: Edit

Chad,
Or a couple FFs.
Make an FF with six C-Racks and give it double drone control. Use two of them. Each loads up on type IV-MWs. Toss in something to up their EW (read power or bttys). If you try to close you get 24 type IV-MWs tossed at you or 120 warp seekers. You can't kill them all so you have to run. On a closed map that can be very hard. Each one that hits does 2 points of damage. Potential of 240 points of damage coming in.

Worst part of all, the FFs wouldn't be too outragious either.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:51 pm: Edit

1: Of course there are unreasonable players out there, but that should not limit the fun for the reasonable ones. Of the people that I play NONE would "brow beat" a person into letting them take, what their opponent feels is an unfair unit, and if the rules are optional it would not matter. Of course I can assume who I game with is going to be reasonable, if not I would not game with them.
2: I never said it was balanced, I just did not think it was unbeatable.
3: You are assuming that the 15 reinforcement is going to be on the shield that you get hit on, which would not always be the case, especially with a unit like the Frax who can fire something out of any shield arc. You are also missing the other point (and you are correct about the 25 Trans, I appoligize)that even if you dump them on the ship, it does not mean that they will win, and if they don't you lose.
4:Battleships do not have to be slow, moving at speed 24 a typical battleship uses 48 warp, they have 78 power (most do) this results in 30 power available, after bookeeping and EW they have 17.5 power plus batteries, more than most units moving that speed, have the BB go 20 and it has 25.5 pwr available plus 12 btty. That is a reasonable battle speed, especially considering it does not have to go anywhere as your tactics are pretty much religated to that of a big seeking weapon, you would be hard pressed to punch the forward shield of a BB at range 3(with some reinforcement) and would be detonated if you tried. Even if you did manage to board it with 25 BPS you would have an iffy time winning the combat. What guaranteed 2 shift are you talking about, and since when did 2 P-gs knock out an S torp, try half an S torp. What about Pseudo torps? How about the two R torps the other S and two F's you would have to wade through to get to the BB?
You are not really arguing that your unit can defeat a BB, it can not. The same goes for DN's, most BCH's, CXs etc. You unit is really good for a one shot surprise, but after the opponent knows what you are doing it would not be effective.
Thanks for the help on other units that could kill it, it is appreciated.
I really do not see what it matters as to whether or not you could make a "killer" unit, you could get out a piece of graph paper and do the same thing with no system, but at least a system gives some guidance on the construction of units. If an optional rule it does not have to be used, so what does it matter if it is available if you do not wish to use it?

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 03:56 pm: Edit

Mark: Sounds nice, but a couple of well placed t-bombs could take out the whole swarm. The other problem is you have 12 imps. for the warp seekers to hit, and then they are gone. Again, not unbeatable, certainly more of a problem on a closed map, but not unbeatable. The Kzintis have some nice drone frigates that could do virtually what you want as is.
Again, another nice "surprise", but really not well rounded.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 04:05 pm: Edit

David: I think the biggest check that my system uses is BPV, if you want a super CL then it is going to cost you, but trying to make a 150 BPV CA a monster within the shock limits is very hard. I feel that a system must have BPV calculable somewhere to be useful, as how else do you compare the constructed units to published ones?
The technology tree looks interesting, but seems more suited to a campaign system than a shipcon manual.
John/Chad: Yes the transporters should be limited, and you are correct on Bruce's system promoting mongrel ships.

By Randy Buttram (Peregrine) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 07:31 pm: Edit

How about the cake-cutting theorem? If a player designes what they think (or their opponents think) is an ubership, require them to let their opponents fly the ubership against them before they can use it themselves.

By Peter Wiggen (Ender) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:18 pm: Edit

There are already plenty of SFB sanctioned ships out there. The only way to make this work for everyone and be fair (at least partly) in a sanctioned "pick-up" event is to make the mods very limited on existing ship designs. This protects ADB copyrights and allows flexibility and fun for those who want personalized ships. There is no need for a "from the ground up design system". This would also allow ADB to still publish SSD books without worry of them not selling. People will actually be more eager to buy said products in hopes of tweaking the designs. This is the only equitable solution.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:38 pm: Edit

Peter: I disagre with your statement. How does this protect ADB copyrights, there are thousands of unofficial ships on the web as is? I feel that ADB would have no problem selling SSD books if a shipcon manual was published as the ships in the ADB books would have been playtested, and therefore their BPV's would be better than ships constructed using a system. People would be just as eager to buy designs to "tweak" with or without a shipcon manual. The only equitable solution is to allow people the greatest number of options possible, a shipcon manual would most likely be "optional" anyway, so if you do not want to use it, do not, but try not to limit someone elses creativity.
If you are refering to a sanctioned event as a tournament of some sort then I think the tournament ships are the best bet for complete fairness, but of course they also limit your choices greatly. The end result of this whole thread is that a shipcon manual would greatly increase choice into the game. Some people are afraid of what that choice may bring, even though they could just not use the manual, they would like to impose their will on others to limit someone elses choices, which is somewhat sad.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 09:43 pm: Edit

I'ld just like to throw something in here.

My brother once said that he'ld play SFB if he could design his own ships.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Thursday, April 04, 2002 - 10:34 pm: Edit

Mike: I have met quite a few people who have said the same thing. A shipcon manual would just increase the choices available to players, potentially creating NEW players, which we all want.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:27 am: Edit

Scott.

My tech tree was supposed to be able to be integrated with a campaign system. However, you can just give players a certain amount of technology to design their ships around, and it becomes the way to set boundaries on your ship designs.

The 30-transporter problem here is simply one manifestation of what you can do with too much space. Sure, you can limit transporters, but then someone could say - hey! batteries are cheap - Why don't I have 30 batteries? You have to put limits on just about everything, or players will find a way to abuse the system. The most abusable thing of all is excess space.

Coming back to my "super CL" argument. I note that I could upgrade the CL starting package to have the boxes of a CA starting package. Suppose I do this, except instead of adding additional warp, I add additional APR, as I don't need more warp.

4hull - 2
1 lab - 0.5
shtl - 2
tran - 1
emer - 2
bty - 1
apr- 2
imp- 3
6APR -12 (instead of 6 warp)
2*6 shield boxes - 2

the CL is now 97 BPV, where your CA starting package is 90 BPV. However, the CA needs to have its turn mode upgraded, costing 5% of its BPV. Once weapons have been added, this will be about a 7BPV surcharge.

So, I can build a CL with exactly the same internals (77) and shields/turn mode (except the 6 warp/APR) as the CA for exactly the same BPV. The only disadvantage the CL has is that it has fewer spaces (15) left to allocate. I can add the same 15 spaces of weapons to both the CA and the CL and they will still have almost identical BPV. (and if challenged about shock problems - I note that the Phas-1 is an excellent weapon that generates no shock).

But there is no doubt that this Super-CL with 92 spaces will strongly outclass an average 92-space CA, because it has 10 more spare power when going at max speed. You *always* want to use all available space.

However, in this analysis, I was impressed with one aspect of your design system. Your packages do keep a lid on things somewhat, and do reduce the abuse. Unfortunatly, they also make designing some galactic ships (e.g. orions, which frequently do not have APR) impossible.

Other possible glitches in your system. If you put a lid on transporters, most people would go for a BTTY over a TRAN (same BPV). After all, there is little point in having additional tran over the base levels unless you intend to capture ships. Many would choose Lab over Hull (at least until they get about 6 lab). Why have more than 5 or so control boxes on a CA? (even 5 is excessively likely to be uncontrolled).

PS I'm sure if you could see all my system, you would find some glitches. This is merely tring to help, not saying mine's better.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 05:55 am: Edit

Scott

Hmm - Suppose I used *your* (or a similar) system to work out the BPV of a ship.... It is possible that I could change the costs of my elements to give a BPV output. Still, a problem here is that BPV is not simply a matter of adding up the boxes, it has a number of other parameters. Your "package" system is one way to make the system give workable BPV values.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 07:10 am: Edit

David: Certainly a valid point about CL's and CA's. I was just looking over a Barbarian CA and Cl and noting that you could pack on the same weapons, and end up with a better unit for the CL (cheaper, better move cost/power ratio 32 power, vs. 38 on the CA) than the Barb. CA. I do not know if this holds out for all "War" classes or not, but it is a good point. Maybe some sort of change on the number of total boxes for a CL is needed or the CA is "better" simply because it can mount higher shock value weapons.
The lid thing is a good point, the "check" I tried to go for was total space. If you want 20 btty, fine, but there is little room for other stuff, i.e. maulers, but maybe that is insufficient and needs to be looked into.
A sliding scale for some items, maybe phasers or other things might be a nice additon to prevent "uber phaser boats" and such. I really want to keep the system as open as possible, but also try to prevent the most "munchkinism" as possible.
An idea to help prevent some of the "munchies" I just had was to make the BASE PACKAGE units only worth half or 1/4 their value if changed into something else. For example, if a player wanted to change 8 hull boxes to btty, then the player would only get 1/2 or 1/4 the BPV the hull is worth (or the trans or the control spaces etc.) thus making the base package parts cheaper and more attractive to keep. What do you think?
I am also changing the drone proofing rule to costing 2X for each of the listed options after 4 and 3X after 6 and 4X after 8 of the noted weapons, causing GAT BEASTS to be possible, yet ridiculosly expensive.
Should I do the same thing for transporters possibly after 10 or 12 make each one 3 or 4 BPV?
I appreciate any criticisms as how else can I see the flaws and make the system better?

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 07:33 am: Edit

Scott.

I think the first thing you have to do is sort out the space limit. For instance, every space, regardless of what you do with it, above, say 75, for the CL costs you 0.5BPV. Above 80, that goes to 1BPV, Above 85, 2BPV. Then you start forcing a player to make choices. Bigger is not always better.

Second, your Phas-1/2/3/Gs need to have a shock value, even if it is small. Likewise, you need to do something to limit drone racks. Currently, a CA with 2 Phas-4s and a load of Phas-1s appeals to me. You need to give people some reason for wanting a Phas-2 (other than just handicapping themselves).

Third, if you start having sliding BPV scales depending on the number of boxes, then you have to make the scales integrated with the movement class.

e.g. up to (6*movement cost) of batteries cost 1BPV each. The next (6*movement cost) of batteries cost 1.5BPV each (etc. etc.). If your ship is a mauler, it can have up to (24*movement cost) of batteries extra at the standard 1BPV cost.

I'll try and put my system onto a computer file, with modifications taking this discussion into account. This may take several weeks.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 07:56 am: Edit

The problem with the BPV's for space is that you will NEVER get close to published BPV's if that is done. Right now using my system you can generate many standard SFB units with really close BPV's.
The shock value for phasers has the same problem, if I add them, even small values, you could never get close to the published units.
I am trying to keep the system at least somewhat capable of producing BPVs close to those of published units if you make the same thing, as otherwise the entire point of it breaks down. BPV has to mean the same thing for everyone.
I had another idea, what about a SEPARATE shock value system for phasers on each unit, this could be a way to cut down on the phaser boats, although I do not see why they are so horrible.

e.g. up to (6*movement cost) of batteries cost 1BPV each. The next (6*movement cost) of batteries cost 1.5BPV each (etc. etc.). If your ship is a mauler, it can have up to (24*movement cost) of batteries extra at the standard 1BPV cost.
I do not understand the above.

I would be very interested to see your system when you complete it.

By Dwight Lillibridge (Nostromo) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 08:38 am: Edit

there is always going to be someone who will try to munchkinize something. if it's your fear then the answer is simple, don't play with them. there is plenty of others who wish it for the right kinds of reasons, such as a foundation to develope new ideas to add to their gaming experience. even if unbalancing they would wish to make that ship work better to be game balanced and with the construction manual they would have a better idea of limits and such to go by.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 09:59 am: Edit

Dwight: You are correct, just trying to minimize problems as much as possible.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:15 am: Edit

Scott, Dwight

I am fairly sure that if a construction manuel were to come out, one of its chief appeals would be to have two ppl design a ship/squadron each, and then slug it out in SFB. As each will want to win, they will probably munchkin their systems as much as allowed. And if one loses badly to the other because the other found a loophole, then they will both probably think it wasn't much of a product.

The Battletech design system was quite well thought out in that it was almost impossible to seriously break the system. Your best designs were perhaps 20-30% better than a typical mech of the same tonnage, and that was mainly because some weapons were clearly better (i.e. the weapons were not properly balanced - a thing that would have relatively easy to correct). The fact that you could not break the system made it much easier (you did not have to self-impose artificial controls) and fun to use.

Unlike the battletech system, the Travaller and Spacemaster design systems both have serious flaws allowing you to munchkinise the ships, and I discarded them after a couple of tries. Likewise, the starfire design system has serious flaws as well, so I jacked that.... I mean, there may be people out there who like designing poor ships just for the fun of it, but I'll go for the best that the system will allow.

By scott doty (Kurst) on Friday, April 05, 2002 - 10:35 am: Edit

David: That is why the best system possible needs to be made. I do not believe it will be perfect, but a really good system could be produced and would be quite fun to use. Minimizing the problems you mentioned is the goal.