Jump to content
S..Mike

3rd Edition Fleet Construction

Recommended Posts

So, here's my problem with it- the tier lists might have been complicated but they were useful the way a checklist is- do I have another slot for this? It's just a yes or no. The percentage requisites are simpler to understand and remember, but backload the effort of figuring out if you can fit the new squad into a mathematical process- you've simplified the rules, but the process of sitting down and building a list is far more bothersome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm willing to give it a shot, can someone have all gunships in tier 2, sure, but hopefully, gunships, if they are indeed more powerful, will cost more, I may very well prefer 24 cruisers to 12 gunships :D

oddly enough, I think the old system was easier (once you got the hang of it) but I don't know about you, but certain aspects were frustrating, espeacially when you moved from say, battle to grand fleet, barely say 1250, now I need 3 tier threes... so I can't afford my extra R&D cruiser squad... and say I wanted some alliance corvettes, I need 4 tier 3s

as long as ships are balanced and diversified enough, that I WANT both gunships, and cruisers, carriers and battleships, this allows me to build my fleet more as I see fit without taking an obligatory squad

this also prevents the 3 squads of 2 frigates, and stacked up dreadnought fleets, as point value percentages matter :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Polaris said:

this also prevents the 3 squads of 2 frigates, and stacked up dreadnought fleets, as point value percentages matter :) 

This is the big plus as I see it. Far to much of T1 heavy fleets (Inc.dreads of crouse) with 2x2 frigate+regroup shenanigans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Polaris said:

that literally happened every game in my meta, sometimes on both sides :)  I was usually an exception, I love drones too much :)

 

And that is a whole separate problem, the metagame that we all may play in emphasizes different styles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its fun in its own right though :D  you start to actually build to beat your opponent, I for one faced only limited PD mountain, as my opponents always felt it was required to bring 2 full tokens of support craft...wonder why ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Oramion said:

You have to do a lot of math with either system:

1) add together the cost and adons for each ship

2) multiply it to get the point costs for the squadron

3) keep the running total or deduct the cost from the MFV

4) and now the difrence: if you have spare points for the class you can add a new squardon or in the 2nd edition if you have a free slot you can add a further squadron.

sounds complicated? But if just take your old fleetlist and check if they stay legal, I did it with 5 lists and 4 are legal, Even my T3 Heay terrans
1x Tyrant with (Shield Projector, -1 Turn Limit, 2 Interceptor and 1 support Shuttles) (235p)  
3x Teuton Cruiser (Beam Weapon, Weapon Shield, +1 Shield, Aegis) (245p) 
6x Wayfarer (120p)
4x Missionaries (100p)
4x Missionaries (100p)
are perfectly legal.

 

Wait till you're learning matrix transformation and computational logic. That is pretty complex stuff. A bit of basic multiplication and you're done is all that's done here. 

On the other hand, for tournaments and the like when you have listed fleets that need to be verified, in a percentage based system they would need to know that X number of points is legal, Y is not. It slows down that process and it opens the process up to massive gaming. That you cut the stuff you need down to the minimum to get the stuff you want. That is my major issue with it and why, I suspect, I will be entirely uninvolved with any sort of game related to V3. 

 

15 hours ago, Spartan_FA_Mike said:

My apologies.  Sometimes I make too many assumptions, and this appears to be the case here.  I'm sorry.

 

Mate, thanks for the apology and thanks for being man enough to type it out. 

My issue with this idea based on hard numbers is that hard numbers have no sense of attachment. A number is a number is a number. It does not support the setting or the models. You have, if you care about a sense of realism, the path to dramatically under represent some of the biggest part of the fleets. The opposite is true, you're creating a system which you can dramatically over represent the larger, heavier, rarer ship classes. 

It's a massive disconnect to the main universe and that in itself is a large issue. The better, best games out there are mutually supporting in their components. This just starts pushing one side out more than the others. It breaks the balance between the other elements. It starts to actually break the game, in the worst case. That, being entirely honest scares me. 

Now, I'm no expert on design, not sure there is such a thing. What I will say is that for each choice, there is a number of trade offs, limitations. There are a number of consequences in that. That not following all of them through, of not balancing your trade offs against your limitations, in conjunction with your limitations you get into these situations and seemingly have no way back. 

If V3 goes down the worse paths it could, V4 has to be a rewrite, not just a series of refinements. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Percentages will be fine if they do a few things:

  • Make sure Small Ships are effective in comparison to Large Ships for their points so that people can take them without hamstringing themselves
  • Make sure there are not no brainier choices in any ship size
  • Make sure there are not never take choices in any ship size

So, not too much to do :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, alextroy said:

Percentages will be fine if they do a few things:

  • Make sure Small Ships are effective in comparison to Large Ships for their points so that people can take them without hamstringing themselves
  • Make sure there are not no brainier choices in any ship size
  • Make sure there are not never take choices in any ship size

So, not too much to do :P

Dude, you want fries with that too?

Yeah, no pressure on my part.   :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding good ships and bad ships, this is an interesting read.  While it does have elements that don't apply to us here (we're not issuing hundreds of models every few months!) there are some points that need to be recognized.  I leave it an exercise to the reader to find the nuggets contained therein.

http://magic.wizards.com/en/articles/archive/making-magic/when-cards-go-bad-revisited-2012-10-22

And for the record, we're not trying to make bad ships.  But please do recognize the immense challenge of trying to bring balance into the force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, yeah, a lot of that makes sense. Some of it only applies in a draft environment or in the context of TCGs where the stuff you get is semi-random. The big thing is that there were ships that saw almost no usage- many of the System Wars mediums and smalls saw no use outside of System Wars missions. Stingers/Wolfs also were... Less than stellar. Suffice to say, Stingers are one of my favorite sculpts, but there was almost no reason to use them. And in an environ where what we get is our own choice, as opposed to a draft or random draws from a pack, everything needs to be at least interesting and not unplayable to warrant the other connections players have to those bad cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, alextroy said:

My big concern is that given the percentages listed, a legal 1000 Point Fleet is:

  • Large Ships 600 Points
  • Medium Ships 300 Points
  • Small Ships 100 Points

Unless there is a big improvement in Small Ship performance, they are going to get shifted to the side except minimum points of models to to meet the requirements.

 

My friend, not the only one. Not the only one at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spartan_FA_Mike, you totally have my sympathy at the job ahead of you. It's just that if you decide on this fleet construction method, you have some work to do to make it work. I'm sure it will take a few iterations both in Beta and in the community to get the numbers right. Just be sure that when the next Directorate Heavy Cruiser (in 2.0 terms) comes around that a quick response is made to moderate the ship back into the pack rather than leave it the goto Medium Capital Ship of the factory because it is too good for the points.

Or maybe I just think 10% minimum is too low. What about 20% minimum Medium and Smalls? That would mean you can't just ignore them with minimal points expendature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

Some good debate taking place here. Just to follow up on alextroy's post above this. You are correct, the balance side of % needs to be well thought about, as it does with a Tier system. There is certainly enough passion surrounding this subject that it needs more scrutiny. And if it means we go back to the v2.0 Tier system because enough of the player base feel this is best for the game moving forward, we will certainly look at that as well. I have areas I want to move forwards with in 3.0, and Fleet Building % was one of my changes, but as alextroy points out... it has to work. Numbers may need changing, and we will certainly keep going with the debate and I am confident with your input we will get it right.

Thank you all for the input.

Neil

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

 

My friend, not the only one. Not the only one at all. 

Yes races like Aquans already have a tendency towards spamming their tier1s at bigger points  i dont think they needed any incentive to do that in small point games with the point system encouraging large capital spam. The fleet will look like 3 Battleships a unit of heavy cruisers and a unit of frigs under new point system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Xerkics said:

Yes races like Aquans already have a tendency towards spamming their tier1s at bigger points  i dont think they needed any incentive to do that in small point games with the point system encouraging large capital spam. The fleet will look like 3 Battleships a unit of heavy cruisers and a unit of frigs under new point system.

 

Isn't that true of all factions? Unless you want multiple activations over your opponent and so spread some points out to get two, three in addition to? 

I don't think there's a clean answer to this. Either you have a tier system and you work towards that, reinforcing it and building on it or you come up with a far more limited, constrictive point based system. Both can be pretty ugly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LionofPerth said:

 

Isn't that true of all factions? Unless you want multiple activations over your opponent and so spread some points out to get two, three in addition to? 

I don't think there's a clean answer to this. Either you have a tier system and you work towards that, reinforcing it and building on it or you come up with a far more limited, constrictive point based system. Both can be pretty ugly. 

Well look at Sorylians for example their Tier 1 is just bad compared to tier2s they are more likely to capitalise on cruiser squadrons than tier1s.  Like with Dindrenzi Frigates put out almost as much fire power as cruisers for less so its actually more advantages to bring as many hammers as you can. The fact of the matter is that with v2 tier system at least means you bring a balanced force whether you like it or not with points % its just going to result in spam .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LionofPerth said:

 

Isn't that true of all factions? Unless you want multiple activations over your opponent and so spread some points out to get two, three in addition to? 

I don't think there's a clean answer to this. Either you have a tier system and you work towards that, reinforcing it and building on it or you come up with a far more limited, constrictive point based system. Both can be pretty ugly. 

The directorate has arguably the best tier2 point/efficiency, if i have to put extra ships squadrons i preffer a second heavy cruiser squadron or a destroyers one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think for me personally getting rid of tier restrictions like this into % is a deal breaker since it will create a race to the bottom who can spam the most of its best units compared to having bring a remotely balance force comp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue the point stands in principle. 

That forces, factions, would take the best at whatever tier and whatever cost, while minimising their weaknesses. Tier doesn't matter, principle does. 

If my frigate/battleship/cruiser/destroyer/gunship/whatever is so superior, why shouldn't I take it? And take as many as I can. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LionofPerth said:

I would argue the point stands in principle. 

That forces, factions, would take the best at whatever tier and whatever cost, while minimising their weaknesses. Tier doesn't matter, principle does. 

If my frigate/battleship/cruiser/destroyer/gunship/whatever is so superior, why shouldn't I take it? And take as many as I can. 

It makes the whole thing into a farce breaking any immersion that might have  existed that this is an actual real fleet imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.