A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
https://starfleetgames.com/federation/phpBB3/
https://starfleetgames.com/federation/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=3130
Yes, it is wierd. I'd say that it means 1 person lost, but the other took so much damage that it wasn't worth the victory.terryoc wrote: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.
that's right in line what I figured when I read it. a slight victory is a basically a draw anyway, however, once you pass that reasonable margin, it's a victory.pinecone wrote:Yes, it is wierd. I'd say that it means 1 person lost, but the other took so much damage that it wasn't worth the victory.terryoc wrote: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.
Perhaps you just worded things poorly. The wording you used earlier seemed to suggest otherwise.storeylf wrote: 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.
There is obviously some correlation between BPV and balance. Unless we test every single 5-20% difference in BPV, it would obviously impossible to say whether it was linear or quadratic or some other relation.storeylf wrote: 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 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've shown that equal damage inflicted equals equal victory points and then given a small handicap to the smaller fleet to compensate. Surely that should be obvious.storeylf wrote: 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?
You're completely ignoring the fact that the 3*150 pt fleet has taken 75 shield boxes damage before the fight started. So it should be easier to destroy one of their 150 pt ships compared to a 150 pt ship in the 2*150, 125 fleet.storeylf wrote: 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.
My system balances things in the direction most people expect as well. Equalize victory points and then handicap the bigger fleet.storeylf wrote: 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.
And yet the Origins winner had 1 big 2 smalls. I've played both ways and if you ignore the DNH early, he's going to crush your fleet. It may be possible to pick off the 2 DW early, but it's not easy to avoid heavy damage to your cruisers in the process. Currently, both fleet models are valid tournament choices whereas under Eric's system, only the 3 equals would be which takes away a lot of richness and strategy in fleet selection.storeylf wrote: 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).
I've shown that equal damage inflicted equals equal victory points and then given a small handicap to the smaller fleet to compensate. Surely that should be obvious.
You're completely ignoring the fact that the 3*150 pt fleet has taken 75 shield boxes damage before the fight started. So it should be easier to destroy one of their 150 pt ships compared to a 150 pt ship in the 2*150, 125 fleet.
If both sides cripple all ships on the other side, they score 212.5 pts. Seems fair to me.
My system balances things in the direction most people expect as well. Equalize victory points and then handicap the bigger fleet.
The shield damage certainly factors into it! 75 shield boxes of damage is going to have an effect. If the 450 pt fleet sticks all 75 on 2 ships and then the 425 fleet concentrates fire on the undamaged ship, that is his choice and his strategy. He's choosing to score 141.7 hard points rather than attacking an easier target.storeylf wrote:You haven't shown equal damage = equal victory points at all, as I just demostrated, your system can just as often exacerbate what you set out to do, by turning equal damage into unequal victory points.
I'm not ignoring the shileld damage, you said you like equal damage = equal victory points, the shield damage doesn't factor into that as you have no idea where it went or indeed what affect it actually had. It is an arbitary adjustement which may have zero affect on a fight. In a 5 pt difference fight the 15 extra shield damage spread across 18 shields may well be of no consequence, whilst the smaller fleet definatly loses points, even if he scores equal damage.
Surely you're not suggesting that shield damage to the bigger fleet doesn't help the smaller fleet?storeylf wrote: The point adjustement reduces the smaller fleets points, how are you so sure the shield damage not only compensates for that, but also compensates for what was you initial propsotion that the smaller fleet needed extra help in the first place.
Your VP system works ok if, as you say both sides all damage each other, or all cripple each other. In any other scenario it can produce all sorts of bizarre affects, often in favor of the larger fleet, who you think is already at an the edge.
Like I say your system does not sound any better, and probably worse than the curren system.
NO SHIELD DAMAGE. I would never accept this. I believe that of you took a poll, no one will like crippling their ship. It is just is not fun. And this game, in the end, is suppose to be fun.mojo jojo wrote:Surely you're not suggesting that shield damage to the bigger fleet doesn't help the smaller fleet?
If you accept that shield damage to the larger fleet helps the smaller fleet, then it only becomes a question of the magnitude of the shield damage needed.
I'm sorry you feel that way. You're missing out on a LOT of scenarios where a side has shield/internal damage before it starts. Romulan Attacks has 4-5 scenarios with prior damage in it.ericphillips wrote:NO SHIELD DAMAGE. I would never accept this. I believe that of you took a poll, no one will like crippling their ship. It is just is not fun. And this game, in the end, is suppose to be fun.
Again, it is the difference between giving the lesser ship an advantage (which the point differential is supposed to do), or giving the larger ship a handicap. I'd rather give an advantage than give myself a disadvantage.
You can always cherry pick situations where 1 ship at lower BPV is arguably better than a ship at higher BPV. And yet, very few would argue that OVERALL, a higher BPV ship should have an advantage.ericphillips wrote: I have to agree with StoreyLF, I don't think your solution is a good solution even if I was ok with damaging my shields. Some combinations of ships at a lesser value may be more effective than one with a few more points (many feel their Fed CS at 145BPV is better than the CA at 147 BPV). Also, the classic duel of a Fed CA and Kli D7 is considered equal, yet the CA is 147BPV vs. 138 BPV for the D7. This means many believe the BPV is a good, but not exact measure of effectiveness. Not enough, IMO, to need handicaps.
I'm not sure that you're reading my modified suggestion correctly. The lower BPV fleet gets FEWER points than the standard tournament setup, but the higher fleet has damaged shields to compensate. So a 440 vs 450 pt fleet would multiply his raw score by 440/450 to get a final score. In compensation, the 450 pt fleet has to damage 30 boxes before the fight starts. There is no doubling of reward for going smaller.ericphillips wrote: Again, do you even need an adjustment? I mean, you chose the combo, you feel it will work for you, it is within the min/max point values, you made your choice, you need to live with it.
And that makes me think, in your solution, if I took a lowr BPV fleet, against a higher BPV fleets I would get both extra points AND you get to damage your shields? It would make me want to use a lower BPV fleet because you are doubling the reward for going smaller.
This discussion is not about scenarios; it is about a balanced tournament battle. I enjoy such scenarios just fine.mojo jojo wrote:I'm sorry you feel that way. You're missing out on a LOT of scenarios where a side has shield/internal damage before it starts. Romulan Attacks has 4-5 scenarios with prior damage in it. I've played scenarios with prior damage to ships and they were as fun as any other scenario.
What you call "cherry picking" I call pointing out two valid examples.You can always cherry pick situations where 1 ship at lower BPV is arguably better than a ship at higher BPV. And yet, very few would argue that OVERALL, a higher BPV ship should have an advantage.
I would assume in a tournament format that both sides would be picking the best "bang for the buck" ships they can get which means that overall, BPV should provide a reasonable benchmark for effectiveness.
Then it is trading one type of compensation for another. Is it better? The onus is for you to prove it, and you have neither convinced StoreyLF or myself.I'm not sure that you're reading my modified suggestion correctly. The lower BPV fleet gets FEWER points than the standard tournament setup, but the higher fleet has damaged shields to compensate. So a 440 vs 450 pt fleet would multiply his raw score by 440/450 to get a final score. In compensation, the 450 pt fleet has to damage 30 boxes before the fight starts. There is no doubling of reward for going smaller.
Umm, a tournament battle IS a scenario. If a scenario requires a larger ship to take damage beforehand to balance a smaller ship and it's fun, I fail to see how a large tournament fleet taking some damage to balance a smaller fleet would somehow not be fun.ericphillips wrote:This discussion is not about scenarios; it is about a balanced tournament battle. I enjoy such scenarios just fine.
Then it gets back to a point made awhile ago. With no compensation, pretty much everyone will select a fleet as close to 450 pts as possible. You'd be missing out on a rich and varied assortment of potential matchups in a tournament which IMO would diminish the fun factor.ericphillips wrote: What you call "cherry picking" I call pointing out two valid examples.
The person choosing the combination is choosing what he thinks is best. If you truly believe your lower BPV fleet is the one to win with, then it is your choice. No handouts.
It would be a lot more complicated to try and dream up such a system of compensation and it probably wouldn't work very well with fleets that are very close in BPV. My solution is very simple and easy to implement.ericphillips wrote: Then it is trading one type of compensation for another. Is it better? The onus is for you to prove it, and you have neither convinced StoreyLF or myself.
And for not taking shield damage, it is not fun. If you have to adjust because of different point values the best solution is to give an advantage to the lower fleet. The current system does that, and as I don't think it is necessary, it is more acceptable than your solutions.
A better solution is to give an advantage to the lower fleet. How about giving a legendary officer, or weapn upgrade, or something to the lower BPV fleet.
You are changing the argument. It has nothing to do with the scenarios you mention. What you have is a straw man argument.mojo jojo wrote:Umm, a tournament battle IS a scenario. If a scenario requires a larger ship to take damage beforehand to balance a smaller ship and it's fun, I fail to see how a large tournament fleet taking some damage to balance a smaller fleet would somehow not be fun.
i disagree.Then it gets back to a point made awhile ago. With no compensation, pretty much everyone will select a fleet as close to 450 pts as possible. You'd be missing out on a rich and varied assortment of potential matchups in a tournament which IMO would diminish the fun factor.
The current solution used at Origins to give points to the lesser fleet is far far better than yours. However, it i opbvious through your use of strawman arguments, and cherry picking your own proof while discounting others by saying they are cherry picking that this argument is less about trying to make the system better, but rather you winning the argument.It would be a lot more complicated to try and dream up such a system of compensation and it probably wouldn't work very well with fleets that are very close in BPV. My solution is very simple and easy to implement.
A strawman argument??? Do you know what that term means? You said that you found published scenarios with prior damage fun but you wouldn't find tournament scenarios with prior damage fun. I'm just trying to understand why that is the case. It seems very illogical to me.ericphillips wrote:You are changing the argument. It has nothing to do with the scenarios you mention. What you have is a straw man argument.
With no compensation, do you really think there will be people taking 425-430 pt fleets?ericphillips wrote: i disagree.
It's ok to disagree. You don't have to be childish, rude, and insulting about it.ericphillips wrote: The current solution used at Origins to give points to the lesser fleet is far far better than yours. However, it i opbvious through your use of strawman arguments, and cherry picking your own proof while discounting others by saying they are cherry picking that this argument is less about trying to make the system better, but rather you winning the argument.
I will discuss this matter no further. Thanks.
You were arguing that inflicting equal damage = equal points.The shield damage certainly factors into it! 75 shield boxes of damage is going to have an effect. If the 450 pt fleet sticks all 75 on 2 ships and then the 425 fleet concentrates fire on the undamaged ship, that is his choice and his strategy. He's choosing to score 141.7 hard points rather than attacking an easier target.
Frankly, to suggest that killing a 150 pt ship in a fleet with 75 shields damage is the same as killing a 150 pt ship in a fleet with no shield damage is simply ludicrous.
It may or may not, it is inflicting equal damage for equal points I'm on about.Surely you're not suggesting that shield damage to the bigger fleet doesn't help the smaller fleet?
If you accept that shield damage to the larger fleet helps the smaller fleet, then it only becomes a question of the magnitude of the shield damage needed.
The last game we played was one with initial damage (the base one in the oneof the latest CCs). Scenarios are a very different thing to tourneys though.I'm sorry you feel that way. You're missing out on a LOT of scenarios where a side has shield/internal damage before it starts. Romulan Attacks has 4-5 scenarios with prior damage in it.
I've played scenarios with prior damage to ships and they were as fun as any other scenario.
Really, I would expect that most people would say that within a certain margin there is probably no difference of note.You can always cherry pick situations where 1 ship at lower BPV is arguably better than a ship at higher BPV. And yet, very few would argue that OVERALL, a higher BPV ship should have an advantage.
I would assume in a tournament format that both sides would be picking the best "bang for the buck" ships they can get which means that overall, BPV should provide a reasonable benchmark for effectiveness.
They are totally different settings with totally different feels. one is a well thought out very specific story driven matchup, or 'historical' battle, the other is a bring the best you have in a no holds bar duel. What is fun in one is not necesarily fun in the other.If a scenario requires a larger ship to take damage beforehand to balance a smaller ship and it's fun, I fail to see how a large tournament fleet taking some damage to balance a smaller fleet would somehow not be fun.
Would they go close as 450 as possible? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I know I wouldn't go as close to 450 as possible. I would go with what I thought was a good fleet within the given range. I'm assuming you think as you do beacuse you are so sure that even small BPV differences make a noticeable difference. I don't believe that, hence I don't get worried about being some where in the lower half of the points range if that is where the ships I want happen to come to.Then it gets back to a point made awhile ago. With no compensation, pretty much everyone will select a fleet as close to 450 pts as possible. You'd be missing out on a rich and varied assortment of potential matchups in a tournament which IMO would diminish the fun factor.
The existing system is even easier and is already implemented. You still haven't shown how your system is actually better, you haven't shown that having made 2 adjustments you have ended up with a better balanced system, and not simply compounded the initial problem you indicated you're trying to solve. The scoring element of your suggestion most certainly compounds the issue by giving the fleet with a supposed advantage even more points. You now need to make a further adjustment that overcomes 2 problems, the initial BPV difference, and your extra scoring advantage to the larger fleet. Are you really sure your shield damage is it, I'm not, show me the analysis.It would be a lot more complicated to try and dream up such a system of compensation and it probably wouldn't work very well with fleets that are very close in BPV. My solution is very simple and easy to implement.
Yes. I wouldn't set out to take one, just as I wouldn't set out to take a 445-450pt fleet. I'd choose a fleet I like and the points will fall where they will. Further some races can find it hard to find lots of choices within that range due to lack of ships in certain BPV ranges, especially if you have our mind set on 1 or 2 ships and then need to fill out to 3/4 ships.With no compensation, do you really think there will be people taking 425-430 pt fleets?
Most likely both sides did NOT inflict equal damage if the larger side has taken 75 shield boxes first and both sides loses a 150 pt ship.storeylf wrote:You were arguing that inflicting equal damage = equal points.
What did you mean by inflict equal damage? Both sides inflicted the same levels of damage on equal point ships and one side got less points for it.
You can't assert that losing 9 boxes of shields has NO effect on balance. It may be a small effect, but that's because a 3 pt difference in force requires a small handicap.storeylf wrote: You keep going on about the 25 pt difference fight, also look at the more likely scenarios where the points are different. A 3pt difference is hardly any shield damage, The larger fleet can readily put 1 pt on each of the 9 off side shields, and if the other guy does happen to get onto them he only has a single shield less. The chances are that will have no impact whatsoever, yet if both sides cripple 2 150 pt ships then the smaller side has less points. why?
Even at the 25pt difference you have still provided absolutely no analysis as to why you think reducing someone shields by ~4 all round will balance out the fact that the larger side again scores higher for ending with the same levels of damage. How have you arrived at the conclusion that the shield level inflicted compensates BOTH for the extra points the larger fleet scores AND compensates for the smaller fleet having being smaller - which was what you set out to do.
storeylf wrote: It may or may not, it is inflicting equal damage for equal points I'm on about.
If you have thought this through then can we see your analysis of how you arrived at the level of shield damage you decided on, covering a variety of matchups. matchups you should try and cover are; 20-25pt difference and 1-5 pt difference to show how things are balanced at both ends of the spectrum; Case where the smaller fleet is identical to the larger but has 'downgraded' a ship so has 2 identical and 1 smaller vessel. Case where the 2 fleets are different races and the maths of their fleets happens to calculate different. Case of fleets that are based on 3 similar sized vessels. and Case where fleets are 1 big 2 small.
You are suggesting that your system is better, so it is for you to demonstrate to those disagreeing why you are correct. I've explained what i think of the balance of the 2010 rules, and said that the current system may not be perfect, but it is for you to show your system IS better, currently I think it is worse, and I'm not even arguing erics point that slapping one side with, unknown prior to match, shield damage is likley to be unpopular. It certainly doesn't seem to mesh with your other argument that you like to resolve things 'in the field', surely that means you don't go giving one side initial damage to handicap them.
storeylf wrote: The last game we played was one with initial damage (the base one in the oneof the latest CCs). Scenarios are a very different thing to tourneys though.
Someone has (in theory!) sat down and thought very hard about the very specific forces on each side (and not just the BPV difference in isolation), the victory conditions (which are not always standard), the start positions etc. They have presumably playtested it and adjusted things to get it right. There is usually a story as where the initial damage came from.
That is different to a tourney. You have no idea what is going to turn up, the setting is different, and feels different.
At 0 compensation, I'd expect the Ranger to be better than the Mongol. At best you have 1 extra fusion in a fire arc that you might possibly not have the power to fire anyway. And the extra power/padding/shields is pretty significant. Not to mention with no compensation, I'd expect you to take 2 Stingers to make up the points. You would not go with just a 2 Mhk/2 Mon squadron. In an earlier example in this thread, you suggested a 2 D5W, D5D squadron. In a tournament format with no compensation, you would NEVER go with this squadron since you could replace a D5W with a DWL and still be under the point limit.storeylf wrote: Really, I would expect that most people would say that within a certain margin there is probably no difference of note.
Remember also that in most cases in a tourney you are not talking about taking a 'smaller' ship instead of a bigger ship (NCL vs CA), but taking totally different ships probably from different empires (2 Fed NCA - 2 Kzin NCA - 2 Klink D5W). The points difference isn't representing someone deliberatly taking a weaker force, but simply the maths of 2 totally different fleets. In most such cases it is very hard to tell who is better off, that is the mragin of error in the BPV system being unable to deal with so many combinations of matchups to that degree of accuracy.
Players are not neccesarily going for the best bang for buck 'ships', they are probably going for best overall 'squad'. Subtle difference, and doesn't lead neccesarily to a high end points value, it is why for example in the earlier hydran force I'd swap rangers for mongols. The fire arcs of the Rangers don't mesh with the other ships, and I'd rather have 2 turn mode B ships. That is 22 points cheaper, they lose a fusion and are not as well padded, but I still feel it is as good a force overall. Equally if you have decided that there is one ship you taking for definate (DN, drone ship etc) you may well find that your options are limited as to other ships that will fit in the point range, that may leave you at the lower end, but still with a fleet you are overall happy with.
Some scenarios ARE nothing more than duels between roughly even ships. If I have can have fun in a scenario with prior damage, I can have fun in a tournament. If I play a 450 pt fleet vs a 449 pt fleet and have fun, I'm pretty sure that that I'll have the same fun even with 3 boxes of damage to start.storeylf wrote: They are totally different settings with totally different feels. one is a well thought out very specific story driven matchup, or 'historical' battle, the other is a bring the best you have in a no holds bar duel. What is fun in one is not necesarily fun in the other.
Would you ever play the 2 D5W, D5D squadron in a tournament with no compensation? Based on what you've said earlier in this thread, that is a squadron that you would be happy to play with compensation.storeylf wrote: Would they go close as 450 as possible? How do you arrive at that conclusion? I know I wouldn't go as close to 450 as possible. I would go with what I thought was a good fleet within the given range. I'm assuming you think as you do beacuse you are so sure that even small BPV differences make a noticeable difference. I don't believe that, hence I don't get worried about being some where in the lower half of the points range if that is where the ships I want happen to come to.
I enjoy the tourney style game because it pits 2 players against each other with what they think is a good fleet. It in no way spoils my fun because we might have choosen different fleets. It doesn't matter what tourney setup you have, there is always someone other squad you could have taken.
storeylf wrote: The existing system is even easier and is already implemented. You still haven't shown how your system is actually better, you haven't shown that having made 2 adjustments you have ended up with a better balanced system, and not simply compounded the initial problem you indicated you're trying to solve. The scoring element of your suggestion most certainly compounds the issue by giving the fleet with a supposed advantage even more points. You now need to make a further adjustment that overcomes 2 problems, the initial BPV difference, and your extra scoring advantage to the larger fleet. Are you really sure your shield damage is it, I'm not, show me the analysis.
And yet I'd bet that you wouldn't play 2 MHK/2 MON without taking 2 stingers if there was no compensation. Similarly for 2 D5W/D5D (which you've already described as a tournament fleet you would be happy with) vs DWL/ D5W/D5D.storeylf wrote: Yes. I wouldn't set out to take one, just as I wouldn't set out to take a 445-450pt fleet. I'd choose a fleet I like and the points will fall where they will. Further some races can find it hard to find lots of choices within that range due to lack of ships in certain BPV ranges, especially if you have our mind set on 1 or 2 ships and then need to fill out to 3/4 ships.
Further why would it even be an issue if no one took a fleet in that range? the range is there to give you choices and allow some empires to actually fit a squadron in. I'm not sure it would be some great issue that no one ever took a squad in that range. I don't sit down to a game and think, "gee, we both have squads in the 440+ bracket, isn't that a shame"