The dreaded parity thing (again)

3 posts · Jun 7 2000 to Jun 7 2000

From: Mikko Kurki-Suonio <maxxon@s...>

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 10:45:43 +0300 (EEST)

Subject: The dreaded parity thing (again)

OPIONION ALERT: If you can't agree to disagree on matters of opinion, please
don't read this.

Örjan:
> On a floating-edge table, any ship with a single Class-4 or bigger

Erm. How many ships in FB1 carry class-4's? Off the top of my head, I
recall ONE. Bigger ones? None, was it?

If you know what the other guy is bringing while he gets no such warning, it
is not too hard to devise a custom countermove.

However, I wouldn't call that a fair setup either.

(I get this vision of a really stupid competition where the winner keeps his
fleet (maybe we might even allow repair) and the loser gets to do a
complete redesign -- almost guaranteed to go back-and-forth...)

Remember my point about two different kinds of point systems? Well, I have a
similar one about design systems:

There's countermove balancing. This is saying A is balanced because there
exists some B that counters it (which is countered by C which is...)

This can get very GW-esque very quickly. To counter the gimmick of the
week, you need the countergimmick of the week (figures sold separately) and if
you don't have it, bang, game over. If you don't "follow" the game for a
little while, you don't know the current gimmicks and, bang, you're dead
again.

In the very extreme it leads to what I call the "Oracle situation": Assume
there is the "Oracle" you could buy. He costs 99% of your points, but if you
have him, you automatically win. Unless the other guy also has one, in which
case they cancel out and the rest of your troops actually fight.

The net effect is that both sides end up spending a portion of their resources
in compulsory countermeasures, which don't really affect the play in any way
after that.

Hmmm... sounds a lot like ballistic nuclear missiles, doesn't it?

OTOH, there's zero-average balancing. That means to take advantage A,
you must take disadvantage B. An average combatant, while outclassed in A has
a perfect opportunity to exploit B (i.e. you don't need a specialized
B-exploitation design).

How does this apply to FT? Benchmarking. Lacking anything else, we might
call the "official" FB designs the benchmark. (Sorry, ship registry --
electronic only doesn't count)

Thus, any kustom killa design should have a reasonable counter in the
published official designs.

If there isn't, soon all you see is everyone flying kustom killa's of their
own and one begins to wonder what's the use of the "official" designs?
Examples of bad designs? A way to spank newbies?

(Car Wars used to have this problem. You just couldn't compete with a sheet
car. I could also mention a previous edition of a certain space combat game,
but shall leave it unnamed...)

P.S. Am I just getting old, but why doesn't the idea of rolling damage for 40
fighter groups sound appealing to me? Maybe I should do an opinion piece on
megalomania...

P.P.S. No fjords in either of our countries. And it's FENNOscandia if you
include Finland.

From: Brian Bell <bkb@b...>

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 06:51:10 -0400

Subject: RE: The dreaded parity thing (again)

> -----Original Message-----
[snip]

> OTOH, there's zero-average balancing. That means to take advantage A,
[Bri] Exactly right. The FTSR is not meant to replace the fleet books,
only to suplement them. The ships in Fleet Book 1 & 2 (including the
variations mentioned in the text, but without SSDs) should be used as a
benchmark.

> Thus, any kustom killa design should have a reasonable counter in the
[Bri] And Battle Tech, and most other games that offer "official"
designs and a custom design section. "Official" designs tend to be more
multi-purpose and usually are not built to exploit a particular system
or rule. Custom designs sometimes are built to this purpose.

[snip]

> --
My comments marked by [Bri]
---

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>

Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 18:36:57 +0200

Subject: Re: The dreaded parity thing (again)

> Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:

> OPIONION ALERT: If you can't agree to disagree on matters of >opinion,

Mikko:

Since I was talking about ways to defeat the dreadstar, including homegrown
designs, I completely fail to see your point. FWIW, most of my own fleets have
at least some designs with B4s.

> Remember my point about two different kinds of point systems? Well, I

Exactly. The problem is that the fighter morale rules are part of the
zero-balance complex for the fighters; remove it, and you're down to
countermove balancing - unless you change the fighter points costs
rather drastically, of course.

> (Car Wars used to have this problem. You just couldn't compete with a

You mean the game I and a bunch of others has spent some five years working on
a better balanced version of? <g>

Regards,