Rarity Revisited

[Sirocco]

This is how I'd design rarity. I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood the plans BTS has for it, and intends to implement a similar system, but from the previous rarity post, lost today, I think theirs is a different idea.

I would give each unit a base value. That would be defined on the basis of the area of combat - for example Army Group North, Centre and South - and the month. The value would be lower if the unit was common, and higher if it was rare, combined with the perceived value of the unit, of course. And some units wouldn't be available at all due to their extreme rarity.

A rarity value would be defined, and it would work thus:

Tiger I : base value 177, rarity value 50%

The first time a player chose a Tiger I, it would cost 177 points. Then it's price would increase to 265 points. Players could still choose rare units, but couldn't choose them in larger numbers that would be unhistorical.

Feel free to shoot my idea down in flames.

[Yosoce]

also for common items youd want a certain rarity number. for example, for a 250/1 the rarity number would be something like 5, meaning you could have 5 of them until the rarity factor starts making thigs cost more. of course this number would vary according to the size of the battle.

maybe this seems pointlessly confusing to some of you, but I think that theres no reason on a battalion size engagement for your second of common equipment to cost more. otherwise people will just chose one of each variation, so the cost doesnt go up

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yosoce:

also for common items youd want a certain rarity number. for example, for a 250/1 the rarity number would be something like 5, meaning you could have 5 of them until the rarity factor starts making thigs cost more.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yosoce, with something as common as a 250/1, I wouldn't even give it a rarity value, I would only give a value to something that was actually thought of as being available in small numbers.

[Jarmo]

This kind of rarity pricing would have the problem of not

encouraging historical shopping.

While the Tigers were rare, you would still likely meet them

in groups if you would meet them.

It would be very unlikely to meet a group of, say,

1 Tiger, 1 Panther and 1 Hetzer.

[Sirocco]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

This kind of rarity pricing would have the problem of not encouraging historical shopping.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take your point, but I think it could be balanced out with careful setting of the rarity values. With that kind of sliding scale you could still purchase a platoon of Tigers, but if the price was, say, multiplied by a percentage every time a Tiger was purchased it would discourage unrealistic numbers. The rarity value system isn't aimed at making players choose just one unit of a particularly rare kind, just discouraging unrealistic numbers. I think in that sense it would encourage realistic purchasing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No

Sure people could purchase more than one unit if they really wanted to spend the extra points, but that would rarely happen. As Jarmo said, most games would feature 1 of each instead of a full platoon of the same. Not historical. When you say it would discourage unrealistic numbers, the exact opposite is true.

The system you propose here has been proposed before on more than one occasion, so BTS had considered it.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sirocco:

This is how I'd design rarity. I apologise in advance if I've misunderstood the plans BTS has for it, and intends to implement a similar system, but from the previous rarity post, lost today, I think theirs is a different idea.

I would give each unit a base value. That would be defined on the basis of the area of combat - for example Army Group North, Centre and South - and the month. The value would be lower if the unit was common, and higher if it was rare, combined with the perceived value of the unit, of course. And some units wouldn't be available at all due to their extreme rarity.

A rarity value would be defined, and it would work thus:

Tiger I : base value 177, rarity value 50%

The first time a player chose a Tiger I, it would cost 177 points. Then it's price would increase to 265 points. Players could still choose rare units, but couldn't choose them in larger numbers that would be unhistorical.

Feel free to shoot my idea down in flames. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is more or less the system they're using, except that it doesn't account for regions like that. Simply put, more rare, more points. Or pick the dynamic version, and you'll hopefully get a lucky roll of the dice.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SenorBeef:

This is more or less the system they're using, except that it doesn't account for regions like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They are not using a system where the price increases the more you buy. The first Tiger will cost the same as the 3rd Tiger.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Sirocco said,

"Yosoce, with something as common as a 250/1, I wouldn't even give it a rarity value, I would only give a value to something that was actually thought of as being available in small numbers."

Then why even include trucks in the game?