> On 5-Apr-02 at 18:27, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
I've already provided that. A size three vehicle has variable capacity based
on tech level. This reflects miniaturization of components.
> Cap only system is one way to go (hard to get right), points only is
Why is this any harder to get right? We have just gotten away from: Weapon X
kill Y% of the time unless the opponent has A mods to armour in which case it
kill B% of the time out to range L in which case it kills M%.
How do you point that? Especially when you have various survibility based on
armour type and various mobilities.
Everyone in this discussion has freely admitted that points systems don't
work. When something doesn't work I have this odd tendancy to discard it. Call
me strange but I just can't see wasting time on SOMETHING THAT WILL BE BROKEN
NO MATTER HOW I DESIGN IT. I like the point system in SGII. Why don't we use
something we know will work?
Really want a points system? Make an economic unit system that overlays the
capacity based design system. That's the way it works in the real world. I
know, trying to do something in the style of reality is heresy, but since the
alternative WILL NOT WORK maybe it should be considered. State, in the rules
that a vehicles cost does not necessarily indicate its' combat capability.
It may be a lost cause. Everyone is comfortable with a points system and they
don't mind the constant b*tching that goes with them when equivalent cost
vehicles aren't equally combat affective.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:20:19 -0500 (EST), Roger Books
<books@jumpspace.net> wrote:
> On 5-Apr-02 at 18:27, Tomb (tomb@dreammechanics.com) wrote:
Well...
For one thing, a point system has a lot of value to new players; both new to
DSII and new to microarmor gaming in general. ItÂs pretty easy for the
experienced folks like you and me to design a functional scenario, but a lot
less so for the complete newbie. And a few bad initial experiences are a good
way to put people off a game forever.
Even for the experienced players, they have a value: you donÂt necessarily
need to design a scenario for every single game. You and your friends can
bring X thousand points and slug it out, without forcing someone to GM.
(ThatÂs a pet peeve of mine, frankly -- I like gaming, and I like
GMing, but I donÂt want to be forced to GM every time I want to play a given
game. That was the case for a while, but things are easier now.)
Additionally, point systems sell. SGIIÂs lack of a point system is one of the
major sources of criticism IÂve heard of the game, and I know for a fact that
I lost several sales of the game to people who didnÂt want to buy an SF
miniatures game without a point system. It makes the transition from 40K a lot
easier for those players who want to try something different.
I know that some people are going to say that the people who canÂt handle the
lack of a point system can go <EXPLETIVE DELTED> themselves, but personally
IÂd like to broaden the available player base, *and* see Jon move into his
own castle and start producing FMA stuff day and night.
> Additionally, point systems sell. SGII's lack of a point system is
BTW there is a SG points system on the web:
http://www.netspace.net.au/~sneakin/expansion/e_points.htm
Within their assumptions some points systems do "work". I haven't seen a
pefect one, but for most situations within its design parameters, I think that
DS2's points system is ok. Even the BPV system from SFB, which is both
calculated and playtested, is acknowledged to be a fairly subjective system,
e.g. a Kzinti BC is a lot more effective than its BPV
value *if* it manages to stay at range 2 of its opponents. A 500-point
Champions character with no hardened defenses can be killed by a cheaper
character with piercing killing attacks (Kodiak, we salute you!) but their
system tries to cover a very broad range of situations,
The quest for the Holy Grail is a quest of slf-improvement. A points
system can be worked on to be adapted for a wider range of assumptions, and
can be made very playable (DS2) even without being "perfect" for all
situations and possible designs.
> Roger Books wrote:
> Everyone in this discussion has freely admitted that points systems