 |
Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Go back to the OP.
| Quote: | | I'm not convinced the free points are enough. |
Before suggesting changing anything, why not convince others that the current method of extra points are not enough. Others have posted the very opposite, that they have found the extra points an advantage.
You have said nothing persuasive about why the extra points are not enough, and you have provided no persuasive argument as to why your suggestion would be a better balance factor instead. Indeed, I see no argument of any kind as to why it is better.
I'd be more tempted by Erics proposition - its a level playing field, you can choose a lower point fleet, but don't expect any dispensaton for it. The argument in that case isn't that the extra points are not enough or too much. It's simply that you make your choice and should live with it - the difference between 425 and 450 is within a range that would normally be considered balanced in a blind matchup, so it's up to each player to decide what to take and show what they can do without any 'bonus'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just for the record, are you referring to the actual Origins tournament rules where you need to score 150 pts and win by 30 or your house tournament rules where you can get a 3.3 pt victory because all ships scored a tiny bit of internal damage to each other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mojo jojo wrote: | | Just for the record, are you referring to the actual Origins tournament rules where you need to score 150 pts and win by 30 or your house tournament rules where you can get a 3.3 pt victory because all ships scored a tiny bit of internal damage to each other? |
In the general sense neither. It isn't relevant in the context of my last post.
PS they are not house rules, they are actual origins tourney rules. We got used to the 2009 origins rules and have not changed.
PPS Our closest ever game I won by 1 pt in fight that had multiple cripples and damaged ships, in what were the current rules for the time, again down to having the smaller fleet to make up the fact that I had actually given up more points in damage.
PPPS The principle is the same no matter what the level of damage - the larger fleet is fighting an uphill battle against the scoring system. I simply do not see your initial argument that the points the smaller fleet gets is not enough.
Last edited by storeylf on Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phul
Lieutenant JG
Joined: 05 May 2010
Posts: 41
Location: St. Louis
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mojo jojo wrote: | | Just for the record, are you referring to the actual Origins tournament rules where you need to score 150 pts and win by 30 or your house tournament rules where you can get a 3.3 pt victory because all ships scored a tiny bit of internal damage to each other? |
Just to point out the obvious... If it's required to exceed 30 points of the other teams score in order to not be 'tied', it also means that the Tourney rules as they stand are accepting, and even defining fleets within 30 points of each other as being 'evenly' matched.
Edit to continue:
And this supports my original point. In the extreme case, (425 v 450), The larger fleet needs to gain 55 points more than the smaller at the beginning of the game, while the smaller fleet only need to earn 5 more points, to force a non-tie conclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storeylf wrote: | | mojo jojo wrote: | | Just for the record, are you referring to the actual Origins tournament rules where you need to score 150 pts and win by 30 or your house tournament rules where you can get a 3.3 pt victory because all ships scored a tiny bit of internal damage to each other? |
In the general sense neither. It isn't relevant in the context of my last post.
PS they are not house rules, they are actual origins tourney rules. We got used to the 2009 origins rules and have not changed.
PPS Our closest ever game I won by 1 pt in fight that had multiple cripples and damaged ships, in what were the current rules for the time, again down to having the smaller fleet to make up the fact that I had actually given up more points in damage.
PPPS The principle is the same no matter what the level of damage - the larger fleet is fighting an uphill battle against the scoring system. I simply do not see your initial argument that the points the smaller fleet gets is not enough. |
Referring to Origins 2009 tournament rules is like referring to revision 3 of the rulebook. It's not official anymore and has been superseded due to changes that the organizers have decided would make a better, more dynamic game.
Clearly YOU perceive that there is an imbalance in the rules favoring the smaller point fleet. I personally think it favors the higher point fleet as long as there is a reasonable pt difference. But regardless, we both think there is an imbalance in the rules.
The beauty of my idea is that it levels both imbalances. If both fleets do equal damage, they score equal points. You actually need to score more damage to score more points. The only thing that needs to be decided is the shield damage multiple. I have it at 3 currently, but it can easily be adjusted to 2 or 4 if necessary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The beauty of my idea is that it levels both imbalances. If both fleets do equal damage, they score equal points. You actually need to score more damage to score more points. The only thing that needs to be decided is the shield damage multiple. I have it at 3 currently, but it can easily be adjusted to 2 or 4 if necessary. |
I've seen no argument as to why you think this will result in a balanced game. Arbitarily applying damage to one side may make it even more unbalanced than you think it is, or it may be totally insignifcant. Just like the current system, it is the matchup itself (which you can't determine ahead of time) that will determine who is at a disadvantage if anyone, not the points of the fleets (within the given range). With so many combinations it is not unusual to find that in one match your squadron minces a more expensive fleet and then struggles against a cheaper fleet. For example drone users can have a wildly different experience depending on whether they face someone with good drone defenses or someone who has to allocate power/ph1s to the task.
At the end of the day both the current system and your system is trying to use the BPV as an accurate guide to capability, and make an adjustment based on the difference. They both suffer the same flaw, the BPV are not accurate enough across so many combinations of matchups to allow taking the difference as to how much adjustement is needed for a given match.
In fact I'd say your system is doubly worse, it applies 2 modifiers based on assumptions about BPV differences, it adjusts the final points (albeit in a different way) and allocates damage at scenario start.
Thats why I'd support Erics suggestion over yours, just ditch any attempt to make an adjustement. If you think you have a squadron that can stand toe to toe with any other then 'bring it on' rather than rely on some arbitary adjustment. I don't actually see a need for a lower points limit in such a case, with no point fudging to game there is no need for the limit. If you want to try your 400 point squad then go for it. I know there have been a couple of times I have wanted to try a squadron that has been just under the limit, and due to the points of alternate ships have had to totally alter what I wanted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ericphillips
Commander
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sol, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe Beta
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| terryoc wrote: | | Edit: This is wrong, there must be a 30 point difference minimum, and the winner must have scored at least 150 points. |
I went back and read this. Yeah, its weird, but more weirder than you made it sound:
If there is less than 30 points between scores: Both earn a "draw"
If there is more than 30 points between opponents: The one with the lower scores loses; if the higher score is less than 150, he earns a draw, and 150 or more he wins.
So, I guess you can both draw, or one can lose and the other draw or win. interesting.
_________________
"I could have been an adventurer like you, but I took an arrow to the knee." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
terryoc
Captain
Joined: 07 Oct 2006
Posts: 1386
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
That IS weird. I don't understand how one player can lose and the other draw, surely a draw is a draw for both players?
The 150-point minimum is to ensure that players fight and don't just get ahead on points and then stall.
_________________
"Captain" Terry O'Carroll, fourteen papers published including six best of issue
"Man, Terry, you are like a loophole seeking missle!" - Mike West
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ericphillips
Commander
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sol, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe Beta
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess it shows he didn't do enough, maybe scoring fast then not doing much the rest of the game. You need to work in order to win.
I think that this is only for tiebreakers; the one with the most points wins. But after, say four games, one player may be 4-0-0, the other 3-1-0. Like in hockey. Neither has lost, but only one has 4 wins.
_________________
"I could have been an adventurer like you, but I took an arrow to the knee." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storeylf wrote: | At the end of the day both the current system and your system is trying to use the BPV as an accurate guide to capability, and make an adjustment based on the difference. They both suffer the same flaw, the BPV are not accurate enough across so many combinations of matchups to allow taking the difference as to how much adjustement is needed for a given match.
In fact I'd say your system is doubly worse, it applies 2 modifiers based on assumptions about BPV differences, it adjusts the final points (albeit in a different way) and allocates damage at scenario start.
|
What you seem to be saying is that since BPV is imprecise, we shouldn't be using it? Simply nonsense. BPV is sometimes wrong, but OVERALL, it provides a pretty reasonable idea of the relative value of a ship. A 150 pt ship should beat a 125 pt ship the vast majority of the time with equal players without any sort of adjustments.
You clearly find that the current method favors the weaker ship. You have stated numerous times in this thread that you think a 445 pt fleet has a significant advantage over a 446 pt fleet (as an example) due to this since they need 1 level of damage higher.
My method would make both fleets 445 pt fleets. If both sides do the same damage, they score the same points. This fixes your perceived imbalance quite nicely.
However since BPV IS a rough measure of how good a fleet is, if there is no compensation for a higher pt fleet, it is unfair to the lower point fleet. Hence the shield damage to start. In this case, it's 3 shield boxes spread over 3-4 ships which is a minor handicap for a minor point difference.
Somehow you think my method is doubly worse than the current method which you yourself have acknowledged has a systemic balance issue????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mojo jojo wrote: |
What you seem to be saying is that since BPV is imprecise, we shouldn't be using it? Simply nonsense. BPV is sometimes wrong, but OVERALL, it provides a pretty reasonable idea of the relative value of a ship. A 150 pt ship should beat a 125 pt ship the vast majority of the time with equal players without any sort of adjustments.
You clearly find that the current method favors the weaker ship. You have stated numerous times in this thread that you think a 445 pt fleet has a significant advantage over a 446 pt fleet (as an example) due to this since they need 1 level of damage higher.
My method would make both fleets 445 pt fleets. If both sides do the same damage, they score the same points. This fixes your perceived imbalance quite nicely.
However since BPV IS a rough measure of how good a fleet is, if there is no compensation for a higher pt fleet, it is unfair to the lower point fleet. Hence the shield damage to start. In this case, it's 3 shield boxes spread over 3-4 ships which is a minor handicap for a minor point difference.
Somehow you think my method is doubly worse than the current method which you yourself have acknowledged has a systemic balance issue????? |
You may be over stating how much I think it is unbalanced.
I haven't actually said (or intended to say if it has been interpreted as such) that I think the current system is unbalanced. I've said the smaller fleet has a clear advantage in the scoring mechanism that the larger fleet has to overcome, and that when it comes to whether the smaller fleet gets enough points pts to make up for it being smaller I do not think as you do - that the smaller fleet needs any help.
Is it therefore unbalanced overall? If I thought it was clearly unbalanced I wouldn't have also said I am not overly bothered about taking a 450 pt fleet, I'd prefer a cheaper fleet where reasonable as I'd like the scoring advantage, but it isn't so overpowering that I worry about how to trim some points of an expensive fleet if I have a fleet I like the look of (as also noted earlier). I would say there is overall a minor imbalance in favor of the smaller fleet, but not worth worrying about. You appeared to think the opposite though, that would imply that maybe it is balanced and we have just formed different opinions due to having seen different games.
The games I'v eplayed where the issue has been decisive are the extremely close games, where those few extra points mean the smaller fleet wins by a very small margin. The 2010 tourney appears to mitigate somewhat against that by applying 2 substantial point breaks (30/150).
We are not talking about whether a 150 pt ship will beat a 125 pt ship (or I'm not, even if you are) . We are talking about whether a 450 pt fleet will beat a 425 pt fleet. Big difference. 25 pts in the former is a noticeable difference, in the latter it is not, it is less relative difference than a D7 vs CA, or indeed a few other cruiser duels.
I am not saying we should not use BPV, though I certainly prefer Erics suggestion if that is what you are meaning. I am saying that I have yet to see how your mechanism improves things, it is simply an arbitary adjustment (shield multipler) multiplied by an already imperfect BPV difference. Certainly, the current mechanism isn't perfect, but why move to another mechansim that is fundamentaly doing a similar thing - taking the relatively small points difference and making adjustments based on how big the difference is. If you are going to change then at least demonstrate with some analysis as to why your mechansim is better than the current one.
If you think the BPV is overall fine then why do you think the current system not fine? It is adjusting by exactly the BPV difference and therefore should also overall be fine. It is simpler and more precise than your mechanism which doesn't inflict pre-game damage by some finger in the air number.
Going back to Erics suggestion, Why would the smaller fleet need an adjustment? The player wasn't forced to take a cheap fleet, and if he did it was presumably because he thought it was capable of beating any other fleet in that range. He knows the point range, he knows the victory levels (the 30/150 breaks in the 2010 setup), he can make is own choice as to what to take.
Last edited by storeylf on Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ericphillips
Commander
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
Posts: 702
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA, Sol, Gould Belt, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Universe Beta
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forget if the shield adjustment balances things or not. As a player it just would not be enjoyable to have damage at the start. Its a gut feeling, but I just don't like it Mojo.
If there needs to be adjustments, I'd rather add to the lesser fleet than subtract from the bigger fleet (I speak like adding a Legendary Engineeer to one ship or something like that). However, in this case or your case, you cannot still have the point adjustment. Isn't your idea about getting rid of the point adjustment.
I still think there should be no adjustments at all.
_________________
"I could have been an adventurer like you, but I took an arrow to the knee." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mojo jojo
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 23 Jun 2009
Posts: 340
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| storeylf wrote: | | You may be over stating how much I think it is unbalanced. |
| storeylf wrote: |
We've played a lot of games under the previous tourney rules (where there was no 30 pt requirement) and to echo what some else said, the smaller fleet has a distinct advantage. |
| storeylf wrote: |
The point remains that a range of 425-250 is narrow enough that 2 fleets in a blind matchup are likley to be fairly evenly matched, but the fleet that happened to cost less has a noticebale edge in the scoring. |
| storeylf wrote: |
Others have posted the very opposite, that they have found the extra points an advantage. |
| storeylf wrote: |
PPPS The principle is the same no matter what the level of damage - the larger fleet is fighting an uphill battle against the scoring system. |
These are exact quotes from what you've said previously in this thread. You throw around words like "distinct" and "noticeable" edges or advantages and now you're claiming that you don't think the system is unbalanced???
| storeylf wrote: |
We are not talking about whether a 150 pt ship will beat a 125 pt ship (or I'm not, even if you are) . We are talking about whether a 450 pt fleet will beat a 425 pt fleet. Big difference. 25 pts in the former is a noticeable difference, in the latter it is not, it is less relative difference than a D7 vs CA, or indeed a few other cruiser duels. |
The 150 vs 125 comparison was simply to show that BPV does matter. If a 20% BPV matters a lot, then a 6% BPV edge matters roughly 1/3 as much. I think if you took every combination of 450 pt fleets vs every combination of 425 pt fleets, the 450 pt fleets would win noticeably more often. You can't give a side more weapons/power/shields/padding without it mattering to some extent. Obviously however, it would be completely impractical to actually try and test this hypothesis out.
| storeylf wrote: |
I am not saying we should not use BPV, though I certainly prefer Erics suggestion if that is what you are meaning. I am saying that I have yet to see how your mechanism improves things, it is simply an arbitary adjustment (shield multipler) multiplied by an already imperfect BPV difference. Certainly, the current mechanism isn't perfect, but why move to another mechansim that is fundamentaly doing a similar thing - taking the relatively small points difference and making adjustments based on how big the difference is. If you are going to change then at least demonstrate with some analysis as to why your mechansim is better than the current one. |
I think you've already done the work for me by showing in the case of a 445 vs 446 pt fleet that the 446 pt fleet needs 1 damage increment higher to win. Equal damage equals win for the 445 pt fleet. I think that alone should be enough for a change in the system.
| storeylf wrote: |
If you think the BPV is overall fine then why do you think the current system not fine? It is adjusting by exactly the BPV difference and therefore should also overall be fine. It is simpler and more precise than your mechanism which doesn't inflict pre-game damage by some finger in the air number. |
Equal damage should mean equal victory points. Plus I personally like to decide things in the field rather than give free VP to a side. And my method allows for more strategy during fleet selection and the game itself.
Incidentally, EVERY number in a game or tournament is a finger in the air number. The free VP is a finger in the air number where the multiple is 1. 3-4 ship limit is a finger in the air number. 425-450 pts is a finger in the air number. No more than 2 command ships is a finger in the air number. Etc.
| storeylf wrote: |
Going back to Erics suggestion, Why would the smaller fleet need an adjustment? The player wasn't forced to take a cheap fleet, and if he did it was presumably because he thought it was capable of beating any other fleet in that range. He knows the point range, he knows the victory levels (the 30/150 breaks in the 2010 setup), he can make is own choice as to what to take. |
One ramification of Eric's suggestion is that nobody will ever take a 4 ship fleet when damaging a FF gives the same points as damaging a DNH. Pretty much every fleet will be 3 roughly equal size ships since otherwise people are going to nail the FF and DD for the cheap points. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | [quote="mojo jojo"]
These are exact quotes from what you've said previously in this thread. You throw around words like "distinct" and "noticeable" edges or advantages and now you're claiming that you don't think the system is unbalanced??? |
I have said the smaller fleet has a noticeable advantage in the scoring system. That is not the same as saying the tourney rules are unbalanced.
Also I did state that, yes in answering that question directly I do think there may be a slight imbalance in favor of the smaller fleet, but not enough that I would be worried by it. I just want to be clear that I do not think there is overall some major balance issue due to the scoring mechanism, which you were cominig across to me as saying.
| Quote: | | The 150 vs 125 comparison was simply to show that BPV does matter. If a 20% BPV matters a lot, then a 6% BPV edge matters roughly 1/3 as much. |
Not necessarily, you are assuming that there is a linear corellation betwen BPV difference and balance. Something I very much doubt. It would be impractical to test it, but personally I believe it is more likely that small differences make little difference at all, but that it then ramps up very quickly. Between two good players a 50% difference is probably nigh on an insurmountable challenge as a generalistion, wheraas a 5% difference is not 1/10 of insurmountable but probably a lot lot less noticeable than that. If for the sake of argument it is a quadratic then a reduction from 20 to 6 only matters 1/11th as much.
| Quote: | | I think if you took every combination of 450 pt fleets vs every combination of 425 pt fleets, the 450 pt fleets would win noticeably more often. You can't give a side more weapons/power/shields/padding without it mattering to some extent. |
I don't neccesarily disagree with that. At the extremes of the tourney range I expect there will be 'some' difference in the win rate, but not so much that I'd be worried about it. I don't think it is so significant that it puts that smaller fleet at a bigger disadvantage than the bonus points they get to counter-act that, which is what you seem to be saying in the OP (and later when talking about BPV difference).
| Quote: |
I think you've already done the work for me by showing in the case of a 445 vs 446 pt fleet that the 446 pt fleet needs 1 damage increment higher to win. Equal damage equals win for the 445 pt fleet. I think that alone should be enough for a change in the system.
|
I have accepted that the current system may not be perfect. That is no where near the same as showing that your system is better, X = bad does not mean Y = good. Your system may well be worse, you need to show some analysis as to why your system is better. How have you arrived at system of allocating damage to the larger fleet and then adjusting the scores as well, what analysis have you done to work out that your system results in a better balance than the current one?
| Quote: |
Equal damage should mean equal victory points. Plus I personally like to decide things in the field rather than give free VP to a side. And my method allows for more strategy during fleet selection and the game itself. |
I totally fail to see the extra strategy in selection or the game. It might be different, but different does not equal more.
Your way certainly doesn't provide equal damage = equal points. In your system both sides can destroy a 150 point cruiser, yet one side gets 150 points and the other gets 141.7. How is that equal points for equal damage? You are on one hand saying you think the larger fleet has an advantage and then when it comes to scoring you are penalising the smaller fleet for the damage he has scored.
If I face a 3 ship squad 3 * 150 pt CAs with my squad of 2 150 pts CAs and a 125 NCL, and we both destroy a CA and cripple a CA, why should the larger fleet be getting a 13 point bonus? Both sides inflicted equal damage, but you've done the exact opposite, you have taken an equal score and made it unequal, in favor of the fleet you thought already had the edge.
The current system would have also made the above unequal, but at least in the direction most people would expect - to the fleet that seemed to be the underdog and punched above it weight.
It goes back to my previous point, the current system is not perfect, but that does not mean yours is any better.
Neither do I see how resolving things in the field meshes with slapping one side with shield damage before the first turn even starts. I expect eric is correct that a number of people would find that a bit naff.
| Quote: |
One ramification of Eric's suggestion is that nobody will ever take a 4 ship fleet when damaging a FF gives the same points as damaging a DNH. Pretty much every fleet will be 3 roughly equal size ships since otherwise people are going to nail the FF and DD for the cheap points. |
As a generalisation I already nobble the smaller ships for the cheap points, and stick to 3 equal size ships as much as possible. My opponent who used to try the big and 2 small also does that now after seeing what happens to smaller ships in a squadron duel. Erics system doesn't change that, and neither does yours.
Although to be honest, it was remiss of me for not being clear - it was the ditching of the points adjustement I was favoring, not the equalising of the ships values when scoring (I'm with you on that I expect). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
storeylf
Fleet Captain
Joined: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 1897
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thought I would add a bit about overall balance, just to clarify. For clarification I am talking about balance in the 2010 rules here.
The scoring system in itself does provide a noticeable edge to the smaller fleet. That much can be reasonably determinied without actually playing.
Based on my own obsersvations and games played however, it appears to only have a fairly minor impact on the result of a game. I can only remember 2 games where the smaller fleet came out on top because it was the smaller fleet. I'll assume that there may have been a 3rd that I'm forgetting, we've played enough that I don't remember all of them. Each of those games were very close affairs, as noted earlier we are talking victory margins of 1 or 3.3 pts. Even before the points adjustment we are talking very close games. Most other games that I can think of have been sufficiently clear cut that the adjusment for smaller fleet has not been overly relevant.
Under the 2010 rules those games would have been a draw as the difference is less than 30. It was less than 30 before any adjustment. The games I've seen/played where the scoring advantage has kicked in and handed victory to the smaller fleet have been dealt with by the 30 point break.
That still leaves the possibility of a game that would have been say 29 points difference being pushed over the 30 point break and handing victory to one side (or at least a loss to one side). Again, this is a personal observation (others may have different experiences), but most games I can think of have either; been fairly small differences and would now be a draw, or large differences as one side sweeps to victory and would be a victory either way (and it is not obvioulsy skewed to the larger fleet). I can't think off hand think of any games that have hovered around that margin, even allowing for failing memory issues I don't believe the number of occasions that scenario will arise is as significant as the 1-4pt victory margin scenario.
It is easy to say that 25 pts could well push a small difference over that 30 point break, but again how often do you get a difference that large? Most times in a blind match the difference is a lot less. Even if you very deliberatly went 425 points you are not guaranteed to meet a 450 pt fleet. Additionally, as you keep indicating, by the time you are 25 pts difference you are possibly somewhere around the point that those points are representing some sort of edge to the larger fleet. I don't think it is a big edge, but it may well go some way to counter that 25 pt bonus at scoring time. As the difference shrinks so does the likely hood of the larger fleet having any edge, but so does the chance that the difference will skew the victory level.
Under the 2009 rules I do think there is a more noticeable balance issue, not enough that I worry about it, but under the 2010 rules I don't see there is a major problem, I would still say that the smaller fleet has a slight advantage in the overall system, but the new victory level system has ironed the common scenarios out, and the other possibilities don't occur often enough to worry about. As I said though, others may have different experiences and hence opinions - you for example believe the larger fleet has the edge currently, hence the OP, presumably based on different experiences.
I think that the 2010 rules are about as balanced as I would expect them to get. I'd be surprised if any system really got things perfect, this sort of game with many combination of matchups with so many empires is very hard (maybe impossible) to balance to that degree. Whilst I prefer Erics suggestion of ditching BPV adjustments altogether over your suggestion, I do not think it actually makes it more balanced in the sense we are talking about, I just prefer the idea that in such a tourney it is up to the player to come up with a fleet that can beat any other in the given range - he shouldn't need any compensation for having spent fewer BPV, he should just live with the consequences of his choices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
