mojo jojo wrote:
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.
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.
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).
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?
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.
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).
