Purchase points are way off ---- again

[DrAlimantado]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

Probably - he also used the word "impossible", which like "always" and "never", or even "nonesensical" (Hi, Fionn!), are likely to make me... post... (MUST RESIST!) against my.... will!

Heh, I reacted against that value is supposedly determined on the equipment's own intrinsic factors, and that the procedure is empiciral and scientifical.

Ah, 'em Big Words.

[Tarquelne]

I still hold to my opinion, that points cost should be changed according to player input. It was badly needed for CMBO and badly needed here.

I think the best argument against making such adjustments is: It's a big can of worms that BFC doesn't want to open. Even if you can get a solid majority of the players (75%?) saying the StuGIII needs to be adjust upwards.... how high? And, of course, the players still might be wrong. And then on to the next unit....

It'd certainly give the Forum a lot of material to discuss.

On the uberness of StuGs: What sort of maps (including weather and light) have you been seeing them on? In what sort of engagements. As others have mentioned before, the usefullness of a StuG vrs. a T-34 will vary quite a bit with the circumstances. (One major circumstance being the overall Rarity of StuG vrs. T-34... I don't have access to a copy of CMBB at the moment... how's the Rarity of the "uber" StuGs and the 76 T-34s compare over the war?) If you consistently play in environments friendly to the unit you'll consistently see the unit as being worth more than it's cost - just like many other units. Yeah, it'd be nice if all the unit costs in a QB dynamically adjusted themselves based on terrain, date, weather, and what your opponent is purchacing. Short of that, it's without doubt always infinitely easier (pushing my own buttons, Dr. A.) to have players negotiate these matters. Low tech, but resource friendly!

That being said, I think a more fruitfull line of approach - if you want to see some cost changes - would be to inquire about the formula used to calculate the points. Do vehicle costs have, for example, some sort of "sliding scale" adjustment taking into account the Rarity of weapons that can penetrate the vehicle's armor from various angles of attack? Or is there some other mechanism in place that accomplishes the same thing.

Hmm... I guess the key thing would be demonstrating just _why_ the StuG needs the adjustment, and how that adjustment could be applied to all other units in the game, in a fair and balanced manner. Improve BFCs formula rather than circumvent it.

[ October 22, 2002, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[blazethedog]

And Finally, for my 2 cents! Yes the Stugs are fairly cheap, but if you QB a lot you will soon find out that the Ground Pressure these units exert is not insignificant and they tend to bog down and become immobilized on anything but a road. Yes there are units that have a higher GP but at least the MK III/IV's have a turret. Stugs can be cheap, but they can also make themselves bait pretty fast. And, for those that haven't tried it, when a tank gets bogged. Stop it, put it in reverse at a 45 degree angle, and then head straight out(so the tank is either 45 degrees left/right of your original heading). Check the lie of the land. It tends to work better if on a slope you back up the slope and then drive down it. Has worked about 80% of the time for me!

[Battlefront.com]

<sigh>

It appears that no matter how many times I, or anybody else, explains that a human (biased) based system will NOT WORK some people can't hear because they have their fingers planted firmly in their ears and are going "nah-nah-nah-nah I can't hear you!!" at the top of their lungs

I don't know how else to explain it, but I can point out that everytime the inescapable realities of a whimsical system are pointed out the people in support of it fail to address any of the shortcomings (i.e. impossibilities) of that system. Instead they just say "give us the tools and we will make it work". BS This is the same type of arguement used when someone states that such and such a tank is too easy/hard to kill. "Just let us manipulate the armor and penetration stats and everything will be fine and everybody will be happy". This is about as correct as saying that if all countries just got rid of their armies there would be world peace

StuGs are not über tanks, despite the narrowly focused and narrowly defined examples put forward. They have serious shortcomings and can be taken care of. However, like any unit in the game if it is used correctly in a favorable situation with favorable luck vs. a player who doesn't know how to handle it then it will likely come out very well.

Put a King Tiger in a flat open Steppe map 2500m deep in daylight and good weather and tell me with a straight face that you think it would lose to whatever faced it, regardless of price. So what does this mean? Should we increase the price of the King Tiger because in this situation it is "unbeatable"? Heavens to Betsy, if prices were to be manipulated simply because of its optimal conditions there would be no end to price manipulations! Every single unit would likely have to have 200 or 300 different prices!

Folks, this is where gamers have to sit back and think like designers. What you ask for will NOT work. There are things already coded up that can level the playing field if that is what you seek. Use random QB variables, have computer selected forces, give the Soviet player more points on the Attack, etc. And if this still doesn't float your bout, have gentlemans agreements not to use StuGs.

The simple fact of the matter is that no matter what system is employed, QB gamers *will* figure out a way to pervert the system. This was true in CMBO and is true in CMBB and will be true in whatever game we make in the future. Well, unless we remove certain player choices like the ability to Cherry Pick ones own forces. Removing that and a few other variables would absolutely "fix" the problem. But me thinks people would complain far more loudly about that!

Steve

[Panzer Leader]

You know, that was worth it just to hear Steve say "Heavens to Betsy."

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I think that is oversimplifying. Even without rarity the CMBB pricing works a lot better than the CMBO one.

What were the "bargins" in CMBO? They were all created by engine problems.

"All created by engine problems"? Now who is "oversimplifying" things? I don't disagree that many of the abusive unit/tactic combos were the result of game engine shortcomings. But overall, Rarity has the single biggest impact on game unit choices. The Puma, 37mm Flak, 20mm Quad Flak, Püppchen, and others were mucho overused in CMBO. Now they cost between 40% and 100% more than they did before. Players now have less reason to buy these from a point:payoff ratio.

You also forget that Rarity influences more than just price. It also influences the chance that a particular type of "division" will be selected for a random game. Therefore, while Volksgrenadier troop prices haven't really been increased, the chances of getting one in a Random QB battle is greatly diminished. Ditto for Pioneers, FJ, and other highly abused CMBO units.

Of course, the people that complain about the "Cherry Picking" often are playing with minimal system controls and therefore are not taking full advantage of the means of diminishing such abuses. That of course won't stop them from complaining

Talenn,

Ok, IMO, a static formula is just as flawed as a 'play derived' system if used in a vaccuum (which it appears that it is...ie, no 'game experience' influencing the cost).

Very wrong for two reasons:

1. A "player derived" system is impossible to create for a game of CMBB's variability. There are literally millions upon millions of possible matchups that would need to be taken into account. This issue has been neatly sidestepped every time I (or anybody else) brings it up. One can not compare a system that can be done to one that can't.

2. A systematic, accountable, fair, and unbiased system OVERALL will always be better than an arbitrary, biased, and unaccountable system. I have zero doubts that if we opened up the system to pricing tweaks by users there would be more arguing and fighting over those vlaues than the ones CMBB generates. In fact, people would probably waste more time arguing about one or two price matchups than they would play the game!

With nearly 10 years of game design and publishing experience behind me, I can say without even the slightest doubt that I know the customer's mind better than they know it themselves. You have no idea what a fustercluck CMBB would become if we let players manipulate core game data like pricing, armor ratings, penetration variables, etc. The community would vanish and the game would lose a lot of its appeal. Of course, I doubt this will registered with certain mindsets

Say, for instance, a StuG model was deployed in early 43 that had 500mm of frontal armor (somehow...who know..just an extreme example). What would your cost system say? If I read you right, it would be a VERY expensive vehicle because the costs are static, based on vehicle stats etc, and 500mm of armor would be grotesque.

Correct to some degree. The price would be increased, but probably not as much as you suggest. First of all, this absurd amount of armor would likely mean the vehicle would bog down on anything but paved roads, would have the speed of a snail, and would still be just as vulnerable from the sides. These factors would mitigate the frontal armor increase in terms of pricing.

Remember, the price is derrived using a SYSTEM which takes into account all major and significant minor variables. You can not arbitrarily increase one without affecting others. What you described could also never have been produced and therefore is a silly example. However, even if you had said "100mm" frontal armor, the same negatives I mentioned would still factor in, thus reducing the price impact of even that modest increase in armor.

It is typical for players to zero in on one thing to the exclusion of all others. Game designers have no such ability to live in fantasy land. Players can create whatever narrow minded make-believe realities they want, while game designers have to deal with reality and only reality. That is why it is very easy to be a player and very difficult to be a game designer.

BUT, said vehicle would be almost NO better than the standard StuG out there in that time frame because both are still frontally immune to 95% of the opposing weapons while retaining all of the disadvantages of a turretless, MG-less vehicle with weak side armor.

Actually, "said vehicle" would probably be WORSE and more expensive. And that sits just fine with me. Otherwise one could advocate making Hetzers more expensive compared to Jagdtigers or Jagdtigers less expensive since a Hetzer is practically as effective in most situations as a Jagdtiger.

Again, what the StuG price change people are utterly failing to do is carry through their logic to the entire array of game options. Insteady, the argument appears to be kept nice and neat to "StuGs vs. T-34s on flat, open maps, with good visibility, and Germans on the defense with an uncreative Soviet player during a couple of months of the game". If this is not correct of me to say, then can someone else tell me why any time someone argues for different situations than this that the cheap-StuG group dismisses them as irrelevant or choses to ignore them completely?

Again, can someone describe a system that would fairly and adequately account for the millions of different matchups?

Steve

[ October 22, 2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Gaylord Focker]

If you realy want to enjoy the game, stay away from cherry picking quick battles/ladders.

Just because i can buy awsome units and or vehicles does'nt mean i do, even with rarity on.

It's so much fun trying to fight KV-1's with 37/50mm paks and tank hunter teams, especialy when you only take 1 to 2 anti tank guns, and 1 or 2 tank hunter teams.

To each their own, but stop complaining because you can't manipulate the game to your likeing and advantage. If your sick of yourself and your oppononts cherry picking the same predictable units, there is no law forcing you to continue down this destructive path.

[Battlefront.com]

Berli wrote something so profoundly simple and straight to the heart of the "blinders" problem exhibited here in this (and the other) thread that it deserves to be repeated:

There is no realistic way to do situation values, which is what you are asking for. If I'm playing on an open map in clear daylight, I want StuGs to be really expensive in 1942. That's like saying if it is night and foggy, tanks should almost be free because they are next to useless.

Again, if the StuG pricing people followed their own logic they would see that there is literally no end of problems to their proposed point tweaking concept. If a map were muddy ground, same thing... all vehicles are pretty much limited to roads and therefore should be less expensive. Damp ground? Ground pressure should be weighed more heavily so that heavy tanks become cheaper. Clear skies with enemy aircraft, then larger vehicles should become cheaper because they are easier to spot. Hilly, wooded terrain should make all vehicles cheaper, but especially any German tank with its superior optics and gun systems.

And so on and so on and so on...

Steve

P.S. Berli, try not to let it go to your head that I said in public that you actually had a point worthy of repeating

[Gaylord Focker]

Good point Steve, next they'll be giving you crap about flags or something, sheesh.

This is the best game i've ever played. One of my tank hunter teams took down a KV-1 with a mine last night, first attempt i've tried it and it actualy worked, it was so cool. Did i mention all i picked for anti-tank assets was a 37mm pak and a 50mm pack in 1942? I can't wait to play some more tonight!

To my Pbem opponents who are probably livid by now, i'll send out my turns tonight, i've been playing a friend the last couple days.

[Battlefront.com]

Mark,

I sort of understand where the Battlefront administrator type guy is coming from two!

I'm not very big on titles for myself, but in this case I would preffer "co-designer" of CMBO/CMBB. An administrator type guy just tows the party line, he doesn't create it

The SU-76 would have been the most common vehicle on the Russian front in the mid to late years – if you want to differentiate the T-34 into late and early models, yet it is not rated common and I have yet to use one or encounter one.

Not sure what you are looking at here. In August 1944, for example, it is 66 Points with "No Change" in Rarity. That means it costs only 66 Points. A T-34/76 Model 1943 has a base price 121 and "No Change" in Rarity. This means that both were just as common during this month and that the T-34 is an average of twice as capable.

I liked the fact in CMBO you could not buy King Tigers on the same list as Volkssturm. What happened here? I think the lists should reflect the equipment in the type of division you are in – Armoured, Motor Rifle, Infantry, etc.

Actually, there was no accounting for division type in CMBO but there is in CMBB. Check out the Force Type and Divisional Type settings.

In CMBO I thought that the problems with Stugs, Hetzers etc were modelled well. In CM2 like everbody else I think they are super weapons.

Er... not like "everybody else". Well, unless you count 4 or 5 people as "everybody" There is no question that this is a minority group, looking at both the previous and current thread.

Battlefront – would it help if I said pretty please?

Nope Pleading, whining, or threatening never works with us. Clearly spelled out, logical, and strong arguments are listened to. If the case presented is stronger than ours, we make changes. But if weaker, there is no way in Hell we will make a change. If we did, CM would be a big steaming pile of poo that nobody would want to play any more Gamers are great at playing games, horrible at designing them. They can, however, offer good feedback on something that is right in front of them, but very rarely can they come up with solution even after they identify a problem. Good game designers are like good artists. Put a paintbrush in the hands of an art critic and see what their fellow art critics will have to say about his/her work

Steve

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Again, can someone describe a system that would fairly and adequately account for the millions of different matchups?

Since Isaac Asimov is dead, I am afaraid we are without hope...

[Ichthys]

In my experience most players choose Rock because it beats Scissors so easily. Because of this the price of Rock must be increased by 30%. Nobody who plays in ladder games ever uses Paper, so it should not have any effect on the price of Rock or Scissors.

Please fix or do somefink!

[manchildstein (ii)]

Originally posted by BlackVoid:

I will buy tons of cheap 45mm soviet tanks and rush it.

rock 'n' roll!

[Battlefront.com]

Oooo missed this one by Redwolf:

Such a timeframe is not suitable for competitive human-chosen quickbattles. There is nothing in the pricing scheme you can do about it short of doing a different pricing for each month (which would consume our fellow developers for months).

This is just something I can't understand about the ladder guys And that is "if it challenges me, I don't want to play it" mindset. I am the opposite. Put my back to the wall, tie one hand behind my back, and make me face a realistic opponant and I will say "bring it on!". I play games to be challenged, not to come away with bragging rights about how I lost none of my tanks.

Steve

[Gaylord Focker]

There is nothing wrong with the way Stuggs are modeled, they are not a super weapon.

Ok let me say it again...Stuggs are not a super weapon. Do you cry about KV 1's in 1941? Well cry all you want, it's not going to make them any less dangerous, and it's not going to help you immobolize or knock one out or make it's crew bail out.

I've heard of all kinds of tactics before, but crying does'nt seem to be one of the more popular when dealing with a problem on a battlefield.

It is not the game designers fault that you have an inferiority complex over getting your ass handed to you by Stuggs.

Would you feel better if the armor from them was just removed completly so you could deal with them in a manner so fast and over powering it would reflect how great of a tactician you are enabling you to spend an extra 5 minuits in front of the mirror telling yourself how totaly awsome your tactics are and how you own your opponents cause you l33t?

The Stuggs are modeled perfect and reflect what i've read about them wich i am very glad.

If you won't simply take my word for it, set up a quick battle take some Stuggs and i'd be glad to give you a demonstration.

[Gaylord Focker]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oooo missed this one by Redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Such a timeframe is not suitable for competitive human-chosen quickbattles. There is nothing in the pricing scheme you can do about it short of doing a different pricing for each month (which would consume our fellow developers for months).

This is just something I can't understand about the ladder guys And that is "if it challenges me, I don't want to play it" mindset. I am the opposite. Put my back to the wall, tie one hand behind my back, and make me face a realistic opponant and I will say "bring it on!". I play games to be challenged, not to come away with bragging rights about how I lost none of my tanks.

Steve</font>

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB]Berli wrote something so profoundly simple and straight to the heart of the "blinders" problem exhibited here in this (and the other) thread that it deserves to be repeated:

"There is no realistic way to do situation values,"

Yeah, the Big B. said "no realistic way" not "it's impossible."

[Redwolf]

Hey guys do I smell laddergamer bashing

I don't do it anymore either, but let me try to explain what this stuff is about, from what I figured on the TH ladder.

You want to learn something, and you want to monitor what progress you made. For many people it is far more important to tell what kind of progress they made on their average performance. The results of single particular games are far less important to them.

Insofar they depend on "fair" games. They need games where both sides have a reasonable equal chance of winning.

I perfectly understand that some of you (and me, BTW) get the kick out of the single game and the impression you performend well in that game. Other peopel get their kick out of other things. We should be positivly surprised that one game supports both, modulo soem Fionn-like rules which should be pretty light for CMBB.

[Talenn]

Ok, first of all, for all of you not paying attention out there...NO ONE IS SAYING THE STUGS ARE UNBEATABLE. I dont believe I (or others) have ever stated that. That is NOT the issue. They CAN be killed. They DO die...Ok, I'm assuming we've cleared that up now.

The point that I (and a few others) have made is that there if certain vehicles are constantly picked in QBs and are generally regarded as 'must haves' if available that some sort of factor should be added that increases the cost to make them less of a steal. Yes, I understand that across the board it is tough. Yes, I understand that MANY things factor in that adjust cost. BUT I think one of the things the 'formula' lacks is 'protection vs COMMON battlefield opponents'. Is that another name for 'fudge factor'? Yep, it sure is. And many a game designer (including myself) has found himself in the position of having to use it.

But Steve's quote below sums it up:

"Actually, "said vehicle" would probably be WORSE and more expensive. And that sits just fine with me"

If you are content with that situation, then that explains the issue. Actual 'Cost Effectiveness' of the vehicle is not the exact target of the formula. I realize that it is an elusive target and would take time and a lot of testing to derive. I understand why you dont want to mess with it. Its a decision that I've accepted, although I dont agree with it. Thats fine. I'll play as it is and just avoid cherry picked forces.

Also, FWIW, by 'player derived', I didnt mean open forum debate. (NIGHTMARE!) I meant that 'internal' testers go in and give input on what they see and how vehicles perform per cost and adjustments are made, tested, adjusted etc. If, after release, certain values are seen to be off (via mass player input..ie Puppchen and MG Jeeps IIRC), then more testing and adjustments are made.

This is NOT impossible and to say that it is is just as much sticking fingers in ears and saying 'la la la'. Its an opinion. It MAY be in error, just as your can be. I can accept that. I tend to not accept that 'this is the way it is and its as good as its going to get, so we wont try alternatives.' YMMV.

Again, thanx for the input, but I think its just an area that is going to have be 'agree to disagree'. There are two methodologies here and they somewhat conflict. I dont believe that either is completely wrong or right, but that a combination of both would produce the best results, although at a considerable cost of time and effort. I also understand that that time and effort wont necessarily pay the bills, so ITS not 'cost effective'. Fine, I'm a realist. I just get the fur up when I'm told that its not POSSIBLE.

Talenn

[Straif]

Originally posted by redwolf:

SNIP

Insofar they depend on "fair" games. They need games where both sides have a reasonable equal chance of winning.

SNIP

.

May be you can just play "mirror" games. It means in the same conditions you play Soviets and in another game - Germans. Then use the sum of points from both of the games as a "real" measure of your skills.

It should equalize any problems realted to pricing, weather and attacking/defending sides.

Straif

[Gaylord Focker]

The game is just as fun to me if i win or if i lose, i don't "play to win". I play to play.

This is the problem I see with ladders. Everytime alot of those players lose they are looking for exscuses for some reason, yet when they win, no luck is involved.

I'm not saying all are like this, i'm just saying it's not uncommon for the majority of the cry babies and ego strokers seem to end up in ladder land.

If i'm losing a game i still enjoy it just as much as if i'm winning. It's a game, and games are meant for fun.

If your the Soviets and you lose a battle for Moscow map or something, luckily the free world is not going to realy collapse or anything since it's only make pretend.

[ October 22, 2002, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Mare Ichthys:

In my experience most players choose Rock because it beats Scissors so easily. Because of this the price of Rock must be increased by 30%. Nobody who plays in ladder games ever uses Paper, so it should not have any effect on the price of Rock or Scissors.

Unfortunately, the recent introduction of the single finger, but highly potent "Dynamite" has seriously confounded this issue, making ladder play all but pointless.

[Talenn]

Steve:

FWIW, after reading back a little more carefully, I agree with what you say about the players having control to avoid certain situation. Its very true, and I am doing just that.

I just found it somewhat strange that people have to avoid certain times and matchups (and very common ones...ie, the time period around Uranus) to have a 'fair' battle. IMO, thats the job of the point values. But, as has been mentioned, that would almost require a floating PV based on time period. My next question would be: Do you think this would be possible in the rewrite...let me rephrase that...do you think it is PRACTICAL for the rewrite? It doesnt have to be 'perfect' either, but a closer approximation would always be a good thing.

Gaylord Focker:

This is not an insult, just an observation. People like you are why these discussions always turn ugly and into flamewars. If you dont have more to contribute other than essentially 'Stop whining', dont bother. Also, if you dont care whether you win or lose, why bother entering a debate/discussion about whether certain items are cost effective and 'fair'? Very few things set people off faster than getting 'learn tactics' and 'quit whining' as a response.

Talenn

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Redwolf,

Hey guys do I smell laddergamer bashing

Nah... not at all. Just pointing out that there is a very different mindset between ladder and regular players. One primarily plays the game to win the other to be challenged. One plays for the competition element and the other plays to be swept up in the historical context. Nothing is wrong with either, but we don't think we should cater the game to ladder players over regular. Especially if the tools are already available for the ladder players to work around "problems".

Talenn

Ok, first of all, for all of you not paying attention out there...NO ONE IS SAYING THE STUGS ARE UNBEATABLE. I dont believe I (or others) have ever stated that.

I think you need to reread posts by other pro StuG price change posters. They have indeed stated that they are unbeatable, even if in a very narrowly defined way.

The point that I (and a few others) have made is that there if certain vehicles are constantly picked in QBs and are generally regarded as 'must haves' if available that some sort of factor should be added that increases the cost to make them less of a steal.

Hmmm... like Infantry, HMGs, Mortars, and stuff like that

Yes, I understand that across the board it is tough. Yes, I understand that MANY things factor in that adjust cost. BUT I think one of the things the 'formula' lacks is 'protection vs COMMON battlefield opponents'

Correct. The formula lacks the ability to account for Cherry Pickers who cater all the various variables to yeild the results they desire. What the pricing formula lacks is compensated for by Rarity, Random variables, and computer picked forces.

If you are content with that situation, then that explains the issue. Actual 'Cost Effectiveness' of the vehicle is not the exact target of the formula.

Not correct. Cost effectiveness is very much the target of the formula. However, there is no one way to evaluate this. It will change each and every game depending on circumstances. The mythical 500mm StuG would be an excellent vehicle to have in a fixed defensive battle in 1945 on a favorable map. But in general, no... it is going to not be so good. That is why the price might be raised from 130 to 250 instead of perhaps 600. A super bargain for a very limited use, a big paper weight for others. There is no way for the formula to determine which case applies.

Also, FWIW, by 'player derived', I didnt mean open forum debate. (NIGHTMARE!) I meant that 'internal' testers go in and give input on what they see and how vehicles perform per cost and adjustments are made, tested, adjusted etc. If, after release, certain values are seen to be off (via mass player input..ie Puppchen and MG Jeeps IIRC), then more testing and adjustments are made.

Sure, the door is always open for this. But note that it wasn't the appearance of the Püppchen or MG Jeep that was the problem, rather it was the number and frequency. Rarity and other QB parameters can squash that problem easily enough. Other game changes, as Redwolf pointed out, help out a lot too.

This is NOT impossible and to say that it is is just as much sticking fingers in ears and saying 'la la la'. Its an opinion. It MAY be in error, just as your can be. I can accept that.

Then you must aslo accept that much of the case being made for change here is done without addressing any of the main counter arguments. That is what I meant about the fingers in ears and the la la la comment. The proposition was not to tweak a price but to change the entire way units are valued. When the reasons that won't work were brought up, they were ignored by the other side. That is when an opinion ceases to hold value.

Fine, I'm a realist. I just get the fur up when I'm told that its not POSSIBLE.

In game development the words "possible" and "practical" are the same thing. We could code up something using a vast database of player input which would account for thousands of various possibilities. Perhaps we could come up with something that could go even further. But would the end result be more "fair" and more "realistic"? I don't think so. And could we do it easily without it being the focus of months of development time? Absolutely not. So if it is not practical it is automatically not possible. As it so happens, I do think that the system being advocated for is not possible

But it looks like you actually don't disagree with me as much as you orginally thought...

FWIW, after reading back a little more carefully, I agree with what you say about the players having control to avoid certain situation. Its very true, and I am doing just that.

Ooooo... and I thought you were doing so well until I read the next paragraph

I just found it somewhat strange that people have to avoid certain times and matchups (and very common ones...ie, the time period around Uranus) to have a 'fair' battle.

It all depends on how you define "fair". I have no problem trying to use inferior weapons vs. superior ones. Otherwise I wouldn't love playing as the Romanians, Hungarians, and Finns. Haven't played as the Italians yet, but it would be a similar experience. Using "I must have a tank capable of taking out the other guy's tank" as the definition for "fair", none of the Minor Axis matchups would be "fair" until PERHAPS 1944.

My next question would be: Do you think this would be possible in the rewrite...let me rephrase that...do you think it is PRACTICAL for the rewrite?

As stated above, no. I also don't think it is the right direction to move towards even IF it were practical. I think this is a solution in search of a problem. The "problem" is only a "problem" for a narrowly defined group of gamers with perfectly adequate controls to avoid it. The point system adequately reflects the AVERAGE cost effectiveness of that particular unit. This means that it is generally "fair" no matter what variables are chose. That is, of course, unless "fair" is defined differently than the way I understand it to be.

This is not an insult, just an observation. People like you are why these discussions always turn ugly and into flamewars.

I don't think people like Gaylord make flamewars. They can get frustrated with a prolonged discussion a bit more than they should, but many people can be guilty of that (including me, since I am posting here too).

The truth is that there are different ways of looking at pricing and "fairness". Those coming into this, and the other, thread with the "it's totally broken, BTS fix it or do somefink" mindset need to either be convinced that they are not correct or pounded into submission so the Community can discuss things which are more worthy of debate Seriously, I have never said that this position is WRONG just that ours is not. From the ladder perspective something is in need of fixing, but that "fix" is not possible (or practical if you rather) as it would likely suck worse than the existing system AND take a crudload of development time.

It all boils down to people needing to know their place. I don't mean that in a negative way, rather a positive way. If something falls off my bookshelf and hits me on the head, I don't argue that the bookshelf is defective or that Newton screwed up his equations somehow. Instead I look at what I can do to prevent future head crackings. CM is like that. There are reasons things happen, and if it is your desire to pile too much stuff up on one end of the bookshelf and sit beneath it... don't complain to those who can rightly sit back and state "then don't do it that way. I don't"

Steve

[ October 22, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Gaylord Focker]

Talenn, notice i only butted my nose into this debate after the billionth time this topic has been discussed, rediscussed then discussed some more, with no new ideas just the same kind of table pounding i want my way attitude with lack of logic floating around.

So Talenn, stop yer whinning about me and go back to the Stugg.

edited: so you don't think i'm serious about the last sentence Talenn, just having a little fun with ya.

[ October 22, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Gaylord Focker ]