MGO Exclusive Developers Diary For Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin

[Smiler]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I'm not sure how much a "bunch" of games are. Probably more that 1 in 1000 or even 1 in 100.

I don't know. I'm interpreting "bunch" to mean somewhere around 3-5. Even assuming that the flat rate is 1%, let's say there are ten very-rare units. That means you have about a 10% of getting at least one very rare unit at a decent cost. The next level down might have another 10 units, etc.

I'd imagine as you go down to more common units the "blue moon" factor becomes less important since the unit's cost might be reasonable anyway due to normal variety fluctuations.

Obviously, I pulled the numbers from my butt, but the point is that you'll get some variety in a reasonable number of games. With rarity, the point isn't to get a specific unit that you want, but to get something interesting thrown in now and then.

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

What I was really hoping for was more differentiation between fixed and variable rarity. We already knew rare stuff would be nearly impossible to get in fixed rarity, so I was hoping for something more than next-to-impossible with VR.

There is a HUGE difference between Fixed and Variable Rarity. I illustrated that with the King Tiger and Tiger 1E example, both of which are at sort of extremes. You must keep in mind that there are some 300 vehicles likely to be in CMBB. Adding 50% cost to a 50 point vehicle isn't a big deal, but it does make the player pause to think about buying it and trading off something else if they do.

The Fixed Rarity system pretty much dictates which vehicles will be practically available for a given month. Variable Rarity does, in no small way, broaden that list per month and keep it "uncertain". No Rarity does the exact opposite of what Fixed Rarity does.

Honestly, I think you are not seeing the forest through Tigers There is a huge and rich set of choices with either form of Rarity. But each does it differently and yet still maintains historically reasonable force choices. Since the first time we have discussed this, you have resisted this notion because you do not appear to be prepared to let go of options to pretty much buy whatever you like. Perhaps not as much with Rarity Off, but a sort of having your cake and eating it too. You want the game to historically restrict your choices to common things, unless it is something you want to use even if it is rare. What you are looking for is something that runs counter to the basic vision and functionality the feature is designed to provide.

So I say again... if you want to play with King Tigers and such, turn Rarity Off. Even if it is for one game in five. The Rarity feature is not set in stone after the first time you use it. So play with it on when you want a reasonable historical force, turn it off when you want to play with things rarely seen on the battlefield.

And make sure to read Smiler's post above. It is spot on Especially this bit:

I'd imagine as you go down to more common units the "blue moon" factor becomes less important since the unit's cost might be reasonable anyway due to normal variety fluctuations.

Hehe... I think I will make Smiler our spokes person on the virtues of the Rarity system Yes, if one focuses on the big picture this system has to offer, there is absolutely no need for concern. However, if one looks only at this only in terms of getting this or that rare vehicle, at least once every couple of games, then the feature is going to look rather dull and uninteresting.

Have faith that we know what we are doing here. We wouldn't promote this as probably the top change in CMBB if it was fundamentally flawed and unfun to play. Now would we?

Steve

[ May 10, 2002, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

One more quick thought for you Vanir...

Say we had gone with an "either you can buy it, or you can't" system instead of the one we have. Does anybody here think that we would have made the chances of rare stuff being available any greater than what we have now? In other words, do you think would have been more happy with the binary system? Hint... the answer is no

In fact, with a binary system we would be far more strict than the system we implemented. In fact, I bet if someone were to watch 1000 games played in the 1944/45 time frame with the binary system they would see less Jagdtigers and other rare beasts than in 1000 games played with either Fixed or Variable Rarity.

See, at the heart of Vanir's questions is, I think, a clear desire to see very rare stuff on the battlefield with a certain degree of regular predictibility. Either system, binary or ours, can do this IF we wanted it too since all that is involved is changing a few variables. But since that is exactly what we do NOT want to have happen, we would not have coded either that way.

Just food for thought

Steve

[ May 11, 2002, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

You want the game to historically restrict your choices to common things, unless it is something you want to use even if it is rare. What you are looking for is something that runs counter to the basic vision and functionality the feature is designed to provide.

(snip)

See, at the heart of Vanir's questions is, I think, a clear desire to see very rare stuff on the battlefield with a certain degree of regular predictibility.

Well, not really. I stated in my last post that I have never bought a vehicle more expensive than a Tiger (and I bought those only once) so I'm not exactly your typical KT lover... But I like the idea of having the option to buy them once in a while. The $20000 question is what is "once in a while" or "once in a blue moon". At the heart of my questions is the belief that I personally would never even consider buying a KT at +50%. A 50 pt armored car at +50% isn't too bad but a 250 pt tank at +50% means giving up an infantry platoon or a 105mm battery just to cover the rarity factor. No way, Jose. Not unless I know beforehand that the map would strongly favor such a vehicle. So, I like the idea of a wild card chance to buy very rare stuff at base price "once in a while", as in all likelihood this would be the only way I would personally ever get it under VR. However, if Smilie's rough figure of every 3-5 games is as close as you suggest, then that would be about where I would want it. My main purpose in pursuing this line of questioning was to see if I could get a rough figure like this pinned down.

[Sailor Malan]

I've been lurking to date through this. I am very impressed with the thought behind BTS approach to rarity, and their analysis behind the comments to rarity from the board. IMHO, all the comments against the VR system are in effect from bang per buck (ladder?) crowd, although some may not thing of themselves this way. Lots of 'I wont pay more than +5,10,30% (insert number here)'. In this case, play rarity off - you are playing CM as a game not a simulation (and there is, of course nothing wrong with that).

I think I will play most of the time VR. I would like to approach it like this.

"I want to play an inf Btn, + tank support. Now, what type of tanks have Division given me (i.e. what is cheap)". You have an element of choice (the IVD is cheapish +5%, so the platoon is full strength, or you can only afford 3 off IVE cos they are +30%, or whatever). I like the idea, and skill involved in playing with what you are offered (but more choice than Computer generated).

If you really want to play with Pzkw VIIIQ, Uberjadgsturmmountainlions, with the late model 15" gun, and the roof mounted 120mm paint cannon, play rarity off. Or face the fact that the two ever made were in combat twice, and such, on a random chance you get 1 in 1000 chance of being near one.

I think we all give BTS a very hard time, picking holes in the 1% (or less) where CM is not exactly how we like it, and dont say thanks for the 99%. (gratuitous crawl and grovel to the Masters)

Can I have a bone in reward for my sycopantic post please (pretty please).

Seriously - I like the sound of FR/VR exactly how it is. Lets play it some, and then comment.

[Scipio]

All that rarity issues seems to count more for German forces than for Soviet forces. The German forces had never enough heavy tanks, while the Soviets had legions of T-34 tanks, which could beat every German Pz-III and Pz-IV.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Scipio:

All that rarity issues seems to count more for German forces than for Soviet forces. The German forces had never enough heavy tanks, while the Soviets had legions of T-34 tanks, which could beat every German Pz-III and Pz-IV.

Only early war - late model IV's can cope with T34 (ever -85 if they are in a good mood). Also, for every T34 (early war), there were hundreds of BT7/T26/generally not very good tanks. Anyway, it's not the T34 you need to worry about - try the KV series!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

One more quick thought for you Vanir...

Say we had gone with an "either you can buy it, or you can't" system instead of the one we have. Does anybody here think that we would have made the chances of rare stuff being available any greater than what we have now? In other words, do you think would have been more happy with the binary system? Hint... the answer is no

In fact, with a binary system we would be far more strict than the system we implemented. In fact, I bet if someone were to watch 1000 games played in the 1944/45 time frame with the binary system they would see less Jagdtigers and other rare beasts than in 1000 games played with either Fixed or Variable Rarity.

Ok, I didn't have time for this earlier. But these statements got me thinking. First I need some grog numbers. According to a sourse I have there were 226 operational KTs in Feb. 1945. What I need to know is how many of those were assigned to the East front that month (all of them?) and how do those numbers compare to the total number of operational panzers on the East front that month.

My kingdom for a copy of Panzertruppen.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

In this case, play rarity off - you are playing CM as a game not a simulation (and there is, of course nothing wrong with that).

That's because it is a game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. See the recent relative spotting thread.

If you really want to play with Pzkw VIIIQ, Uberjadgsturmmountainlions, with the late model 15" gun, and the roof mounted 120mm paint cannon, play rarity off. Or face the fact that the two ever made were in combat twice, and such, on a random chance you get 1 in 1000 chance of being near one.

Strawman.

I think we all give BTS a very hard time, picking holes in the 1% (or less) where CM is not exactly how we like it, and dont say thanks for the 99%. (gratuitous crawl and grovel to the Masters)

Nobody here is giving BTS a hard time. I'd say there are few people on this board that have spent more time defending CM from the masses of "my KT got killed by a Stuart BTS fix or do somefink!" guys than I have. If we can't have a mild and polite discussion about the rarity system BTS ought to just close down this board now, cuz it ain't doing anyone any good.

My humble opinion

[Ron]

VanirAusfB wrote:

At the heart of my questions is the belief that I personally would never even consider buying a KT at +50%. A 50 pt armored car at +50% isn't too bad but a 250 pt tank at +50% means giving up an infantry platoon or a 105mm battery just to cover the rarity factor. No way, Jose. Not unless I know beforehand that the map would strongly favor such a vehicle.

Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

In this case, play rarity off - you are playing CM as a game not a simulation (and there is, of course nothing wrong with that).

That's because it is a game. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. See the recent relative spotting thread.

Of course it is a Game! What Sailor Malan is talking about is a matter of perspective while playing the game. Whether you play on a Ladder or not, whether you admit it or not, your comments above indicate your perspective is first and foremost competitive. What VR and FR do is impose an historical based set of restrictions on the force selection, a most welcome and anticipated feature for me and others as well I am sure. I see no purpose in 'watering' it down when the option to play without it is already there for those who wish to do so.

Sailor Malan wrote:

Seriously - I like the sound of FR/VR exactly how it is. Lets play it some, and then comment.

I couldn't agree more.

Ron

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Ron:

Of course it is a Game! What Sailor Malan is talking about is a matter of perspective while playing the game. Whether you play on a Ladder or not, whether you admit it or not, your comments above indicate your perspective is first and foremost competitive.

Competitive and historical are not mutually exclusive.

What VR and FR do is impose an historical based set of restrictions on the force selection, a most welcome and anticipated feature for me and others as well I am sure.

I'm sure as well, since I am one of them.

I see no purpose in 'watering' it down when the option to play without it is already there for those who wish to do so.

Who said they wanted to water it down? Not I. I simply would prefer a different system to achieve it. As system, you will note, that Steve has said would result in less rare units being picked. Kinda shoots down your point.

Now if someone would kindly provide me with those numbers...

[ May 11, 2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Ron]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Competitive and historical are not mutually exclusive...

I'm sure as well, since I am one of them...

Who said they wanted to water it down? Not I. I simply would prefer a different system to achieve it.

You know Vanir I seem to recall replying to your posts before and going round and around ad nauseum to no avail, so I will say my point then reserve further comments for when I have the game.

I would trust "Again, this gets back to the heart of the issue that I have had to argue about since day one. The rare stuff must be forced into being hardly ever purchased or there is NO POINT in having a Rarity system." - BTS as valid for the current implementation of rarity as outlined here. If you go back and reread this thread, specifically the responses from BTS and KwazyDog, the people using and testing VR/FR I might add, you will find it beneficial and in contrast to your claim of not wanting to water it down to your liking.

Ron

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir,

I think the others have made good points about the logic of what you are arguing for/against. Specifically, you say you don't want rare stuff to show up all the time. Fixed and Variable Rarity both take care of that quite nicely.

Then you say, "ah... but I want them to show up some of the time". Variable Rarity allows for this, as KwazyDog and I have stated from 1st hand experience.

Then you go to "but I think they should so up more than just that, since I personally would never pay a lot for that muffler (US advertising joke )". By this same rationale, why would anybody EVER buy something like a Jagdtiger, even without Rarity? You have to trade off a platoon, medium tank, or some artillery support even in that case. So what you are basically saying is that you aren't interested in buying anything that is over some sort of self imposed price threshold. Rarity doesn't enter into it for you (i.e. you might buy an ultra rare armored car for 100 points but not a 300 point AFV at "regular" price).

Related to above, you state that you never buy the big stuff anyway, but still want to see the system be different. What is the point, for you at least, since it won't affect your purchasing choices? You said you don't buy the expensive stuff in CMBO even though you are free to do so, which makes me wonder why you are concerned about this to begin with since (probably) the majority of people out there do not shy away from expensive stuff in CMBO.

You have long advocated the "binary system" as a way of offering greater choices, yet as I have stated it actually offers less choice. Unless, of course, the binary system allows for rare stuff to pop up too frequently, which once again defeats the purpose of Rarity to begin with.

And when we stated that there would be a wild card addition, you imediately were disapointed with it because it didn't go bring Rarity back closer to the existing CMBO system.

So I sits here very confused about your position You don't buy expensive stuff (rare or not) and you don't want other people to either (which is what Rarity is designed to do), but would like to see them pop up quite frequently which defeats the purpose of Rarity's core reason for existing in the first place.

Honestly, I think this is much ado about nothing Variable Rarity does what Vanir says he wants it to do, even if he doesn't believe it right now.

Is it perfect? Nope. We hope to acheive perfection with the rewrite when we have more room to do major changes to how units are purchased.

Steve

[ May 11, 2002, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Ron:

You know Vanir I seem to recall replying to your posts before and going round and around ad nauseum to no avail, so I will say my point then reserve further comments for when I have the game.

I don't recall, but if you found yourself going in circles I'm sure you had your reasons for doing that.

The rare stuff must be forced into being hardly ever purchased or there is NO POINT in having a Rarity system." - BTS

"Hardly ever?" I would say the rare stuff should be purchased about as often as you would expect to have seen it historically, which is not necessarily hardly ever, but could be on some cases. Which is exactly what I want.

Hmm. I was hoping to get some solid numbers for this, but it appears I'll have to use guesstimates to show what I mean.

I have little doubt that the current VR system will do exactly what it is intended to do. My problem with it is that is appears (from what we have been told) that it unnecessarily caters to one type of CM player to the exclusion of another. Let me explain.

It seems that the current VR system design incorporates at least one the two following assumptions (and possibly both):

</font>

• Historical and competitive play are incompatible.</font>
• Competitive players don't really care about historical accuracy and so it is pointless to consider them in decisions meant to further historical accuracy of the game.
  </font>

Both of these are false assumptions, IMO.

The heart of the issue is who will often find a rare unit at +30% premium a good choice and who will dismiss it out of hand. Sailor Malan said it himself:

IMHO, all the comments against the VR system are in effect from bang per buck (ladder?) crowd, although some may not thing of themselves this way. Lots of 'I wont pay more than +5,10,30% (insert number here)'.

He is right. I have little doubt that competitive players will choose rare vehicles much less frequently under VR than historical players because the bang-for-the-buck factor means more to them. The popular answer to this is "well, play with rarity off!" Why should we have to chose? Earlier in this thread Steve said I wanted to have my cake and eat it too. He was absolutely correct, but not in the way he meant.

If it were up to me I would design the VR system in a much simpler, straightforward way that I think would please everyone (well, not everyone, but both competitive and historical CM players in general):

If, for example, there were 200 KTs on the Eastern front in February 1945 and 2000 panzers total on the Eastern front (these are the guesstimate numbers I mentioned earlier) then the odds of having a KT available to purchase would be 1 in 10 games. If available for purchase it would be at base cost (all units would be, always). If it is unavailable it simply doesn't appear in the purchase list at all.

This is basically the binary or "in or out" system. Of course you would have to do the separate calculations for each of the regions, just like the current VR system, but it really is very simple. To me it's beauty is in its simplicity. You can't claim it isn't historical as the chances are based directly on historical numbers. And... AND... competitive players can use it and love it as well, as there is no rarity premium added to the cost to screw up the bang-for-the-buck factor.

As a ladder player who prefers his forces (and his opponent's) to bear some resemblance to historical norms, that cake would taste fine to me.

As few quick caveats:

1. My opinions on the current VR system are based entirely on what we have been told. I have not seen it in action and it is entirely possible that it will knock my socks off against all expectations when I do. My attempts to "water it down" are only to get the wild card factor to a point where a competitive player who will hardly ever buy units at a significant premium will still have them available at base cost about the same frequency he would under the binary system (which would be a historically accurate frequency). If it turns out that this is the case I will be the first to stand up and shout hallelujah.

2. In no way do I expect BTS to adopt the binary VR system. I had this discussion with Steve long ago and he made it clear then that he expected most ladder players to turn rarity off anyway and so was not particularly concerned with making a VR system that would appeal to them. My reason for posting it here is to prove to several people in this thread that I really do want a historical based rarity system in CMBB, I just want one that will appeal to more than just hardcore historical players.

3. All opinions are my own. I do not represent ladder players the world over, I just call it as I see it.

4. If this post makes no sense whatsoever, I will blame it on the fact that I have had 2 hours sleep in the last 36 hours and the caffeine has worn off

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, Steve, you posted while I was typing. Fair questions. I'll stay awake a little longer...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Vanir,

I think the others have made good points about the logic of what you are arguing for/against. Specifically, you say you don't want rare stuff to show up all the time. Fixed and Variable Rarity both take care of that quite nicely.

Hopefully my last post cleared that up. That was it's purpose.

Then you go to "but I think they should so up more than just that, since I personally would never pay a lot for that muffler (US advertising joke )". By this same rationale, why would anybody EVER buy something like a Jagdtiger, even without Rarity? You have to trade off a platoon, medium tank, or some artillery support even in that case. So what you are basically saying is that you aren't interested in buying anything that is over some sort of self imposed price threshold.

Correct, in a way. The price threshold is simply the base price. Why that? Because the base price represents the actual combat capability of the unit, in general terms. You can say that there are areas where this could be improved (and many have) but by-in-large CM gets it pretty close. All else being equal, points spent on rarity premium are points wasted. If you spend 350 pts to buy a tank with a base cost of 250 you are still only getting 250 pts of potential. The extra 100 pts are just gone, where they could have been used to buy more capability in the form of another infantry platoon or a heavy mortar battery if you had simply bought 2 common 125 pt tanks at base price instead.

But the argument comes back that there are cases where a person feels a certain unit will be extra useful in a particular game and so feels justified in spending the extra rarity points for it. I think this is the case at times, but in my experience it very rarely works out that way. Certainly, if you knew from the map settings you would be likely playing on essentially a large billiard table it would make sense to pay a lot extra for a big tank with thick frontal armor, even at a high premium. But few QBs, and fewer ladder QBs, are played on such extreme terrain that you could predict that in advance without seeing the map. Settings are usually some combination of the more moderate settings to avoid just such situations where a particular unit type will dominate.

Add to that the fact that the 350 pt KT you buy will bag your opponent 350 victory points if he nails it (even though it only had ~250 pts of potential) and you are taking a huge gamble that would probably backfire more often that not.

Hope that makes sense.

Related to above, you state that you never buy the big stuff anyway, but still want to see the system be different. What is the point, for you at least, since it won't affect your purchasing choices? You said you don't buy the expensive stuff in CMBO even though you are free to do so, which makes me wonder why you are concerned about this to begin with since (probably) the majority of people out there do not shy away from expensive stuff in CMBO.

There are two main reasons I never bought the big expensive rare stuff in CMBO. 1) is that I felt that using it would lead to the development of sloppy armor tactics. 2) is that they are not as cost effective in CMBO as most cheaper units. All of the best bang for the buck tanks in CMBO cost less than 150 pts (the most expensive being the Churchill VIII). Top ladder players almost never buy KTs or Jadgtigers.

The biggest reason I like rarity even though I mostly use the cheaper common stuff is that it will screw up the formula players. These are guys who pretty much buy the same units every game and use the same tactics. Some of them are quite effective despite their predictability. Rarity would force them to use different unit types. Heck, it would force me to use different units. Although I am not a formula player I did tend to have favorite units that I would pick most of the time.

There is also the fact that I keep telling myself one day I will break down and buy a couple of Jadgtigers just for the hell of it. I still haven't been able to bring myself to do it ("But look how many Pz IVs I can get for that...") but who knows.

You have long advocated the "binary system" as a way of offering greater choices, yet as I have stated it actually offers less choice.

Depends. My impression is that if you don't include units with a significant premium as "choice", your choices really aren't better. Of course, without seeing either system work this is somewhat speculative on my part.

And when we stated that there would be a wild card addition, you imediately were disapointed with it because it didn't go bring Rarity back closer to the existing CMBO system.

My disappointment was that it didn't discount items down to their base value often enough. See my post above. Note that you did say this was still being tweaked and so I'm not sure what to think of it yet other than I like the system better with the wild card than without, in principle.

So I sits here very confused about your position You don't buy expensive stuff (rare or not) and you don't want other people to either (which is what Rarity is designed to do), but would like to see them pop up quite frequently which defeats the purpose of Rarity's core reason for existing in the first place.

Not so. See my post above.

Honestly, I think this is much ado about nothing Variable Rarity does what Vanir says he wants it to do, even if he doesn't believe it right now.

I hope you're right. This is something I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on

[Kwazydog]

Vanir, a couple of points I thought Id run past you for these discussions

Firstly, note that user made maps can now be loaded into a quick battle, something which I think will be very popular for two reasons. Firstly, players have wanted to be able to see the map before they purchase their units for a long time...now they can. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, you cant beat a human made map The map generator does do a great job, no doubt, but it cant match the eye for detail that a human builder has. What does this have to do with rarity?

Well, I think the use of premade maps will probably become quite common (even in ladder battles) and players will have the option to spend more on a certain unit they are after for the job. For instance, they could spend extra on that Elefant for a more open battle or a Brummbar for an urban battle, and thus are more willing to pay the premium for these units depending on certain conditions. I honestly feel that the rarity system currently in place will lead to more of the rarer units being purchased under certain conditions than a binary system would. Under a binary system not only do you have to wait for the 1 in 50 chance of being able to buy an Elefant but that 1 in 50 chance has to be on a map to warrant its purchase.

Secondly, let say that the average CM player would go as far as to pay +40% for a certain unit that they are after (personally I go higher)...what does that really mean in a real battle. By this I mean what cant they buy? Lets find out and see if its as bad as it all sounds

Note that Ive chosen a late war battle with VARIABLE rarity, as there are a couple of suprises here. The date is December '44 and the region is central. Here is what I can buy...

Stug IIIG (late-mid model) -5%

Pz-IVH NC

PZ-IVJ NC

Panther (Pz VG) NC

Tiger (late) NC (that one was a suprise)

Hetzer +5%

Stug IIIG (middle) +5%

Stug IIIG (late) +5%

Stug IV (late) +5%

Panther (Pz VA) +10%

Marder II +10%

Stuh42 (late) +10%

Panzer IV/70 (V) +20%

Panther (PZ VG late) +20%

Stug IIIG (early late) +30%

Stug IV +30%

Jpz IV +30%

Panther (Pz VD) +30%

King Tiger +30%

Mader III (late) +30%

Grille (sig 22 auf Pz38t) +40%

Stuh 42 (middle) +40%

Panzer IV/70(A) +40%

Brummbar (late) +40%

Hummel +40%

Panther (Pz VA early) +40%

Tiger (early) +40%

Wespe +40%

Jagdpanther (early) +40%

Puma +40%

As you can see, its a pretty good choice and there are some vehicles in there that would be considered quite rare (very rare for the puma), so I think that variable rarity is doing its job just fine. In this battle, even if you limit yourself to +5% you get a nice selection of vehicles including, to my suprise, a Tiger. If your more like me and you dont mind spending a little extra I can get my Brummbar I was after. The JadgTiger isnt even that far down the list at +80%, so I would certainally expect to see some players will to pay the extra

All up, I do understand your concerns Vanir but I think that this system works great. And note that when Steve origionally outlined it I too suggested the exact system you are describing as an alternative, so I can see both sides of the discussion Im glad it didnt get changed though, hehe.

Dan

[ May 11, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Thanks for the post, Dan. That was informative.

I personally have always felt that being able to tailor your purchases to a map you have already seen was a little too "gamey" for my taste. But I understand others will feel differently as user made maps are hard to beat for quality, so I can see that would be a valid point.

I will say that the example you gave looks considerably better than I had expected. Of course, it's only one example and we'll have to see how things do on the average. I still prefer the binary system, but if that is indicative of a typical purchase screen this system may yet be workable in ladder play. Again, thanks for the info.

[Tarquelne]

As an overly competative bastard myself I think I understand where Vanir's coming from. (I'm don't wish to imply that V. is "overly competative" - I'm just saying I am.)

Here's what was going through my gamey little mind when reading most of the discussion: "The most effective way to purchace forces will be to _never_ buy items with a rarity-induced cost increase. I'll play a "vanilla" historical force and beat people who actually stretch a little and spring for a rare item." Rarity encourages you to "role play" your force selection. "JS-1's are expensive this month... I probably wouldn't have any... I won't get any." OTOH, whenever you do buy an item with a rarity-premium you're sacrificing combat effectivness - AND you've got the unit in your force - so much for rarity! One could say that the system was _punishing_ the player for choosing a rare item.

But I don't think that's what's really going on, certainly not after KwazyDog's last post. Here's why:

Point values are fuzzy. As much as I would like to think of the BTS folks as a posse of Popes, I don't think they're infallible or perfect. I think the point values of the units only approximate true combat effectivness. Thus a plus point cost should be seen not as making the unit "more expensive than it SHOULD be", but rather shifting the game's _estimate_ of it's value up, and it's cost. Given your style of play, the sort of opposition you expect, the other units you're getting, and maybe the map, then, as KD said, +50% might still be worth every point. In other words, you _aren't_ paying more than the unit is worth. But that's a judgement call - one relying partially on your knowledge and skill - that you have to make. Sounds good to me.

+50%? Possibly _never_ not worth the extra cost. KwazyDog could be wrong. (Really, it's possible!) But it looks like there are still lots of choices with much less of a "penalty" than +50%. If one _must_ have, for example, an Elephant, in a battle then it sounds like one should be playing a scenario, not a QB, eh?

I believe what Vanir was getting at was that he wanted historic force compositions _without sacrificing QB combat effectiveness._ Sometimes the rarer units _did_ appear, and the commander didn't generally have to send away a few infantry teams to "pay" for them. "Woo hoo, a JdgTiger has been assigned!" not "Heck, we've been assigned a JdgTiger, I'll have to send back that platoon of PzIV." (Though I imagine that did happen sometimes.) The "dice roll" system does, indeed, remove a players ability to choose anything, but it _would_ encourage historic forces without "punishing" the player: The inclusion of a rare unit would not _lower_ your overall point value.

It all comes down to the numbers, though, right?

KwaztDog's numbers look great. "Woo hoo, we've been assigned some Tigers!" It probably won't happen again, so over _multiple_ battles the Tigers will have the correct rarity. However, for this battle KD can get some Tigers without paying a premium. This particular battle will be a-historic, if considered against the Tiger's historic frequency, but that's OK. That's the way statistics work.

To sum up, and to put it another way:

If rare units _always_ have a preimum, esp. a hefty premium on the most-rare units, then over many CM:BB battles among non-roleplaying players we'd see the rare units showing up _less_ often than they did historically. And players who actually play most-historically and _do_ occasionally include rare units will invariably have fewer "combat effective" points than non-rare using player. Both those things are annoying.

However, since the point values are "fuzzy" then a competative player should be comfortable with paying that rarity premium. Actual scenario conditions vary - Sometimes a JS-2 really is worth 284 points, not just 212. Rarity should encourage players to only pick the rare items when they _need_ the rare items. (Which is at least somewhat realistic - assigning the heavy hitters to wherever they would be most usefull.)

And finally, looking at KD's figures, and reading Steve's later posts, I have to agree with Vanir - it looks like BTS is doing a good job with the figures. VARIABLE Rarity.... sometimes the game asks you to pay through the nose for a Tiger - so you don't get one. That's fine, they're supposed to be rare. Sometimes they're cheapish, and you get 'em. On the average, over multiple battles, the rarity should be right.

[Battlefront.com]

I can say that we did not design Rarity to cater to Ladder players, so it would not surprise me if such players have a different opinion about what Rarity should be. However, forcing players to stop using cookie cutter forces and battleplans is also a good thing. Personally, I think competitive Ladder games would be FAR more interesting and competitive with Rarity than without. Unless one considers "competitive" trying to find a magic unit and tactic combo to be used over and over again. Personally, I find that lazy and boring. The best player should be the most versitle and flexiable, not the one who has figured out a way to trick the system into producing victories for them.

We want it to impose a reasonable reflection of historical reality on unit choices when Rarity is used. And that means, above all else, making some units appear very infrequently. Fixed Rarity might effectively mean the unit will *never* be used. This is good Anything that undermines keeping rare things an uncommon sight on the virtual battlefield is a bad thing.

However, as I have constantly stated over and over again (and over and over and over again ), this does NOT mean that Rarity is boring or predictable in terms of what units are used from battle to battle. The only way, THE ONLY WAY, unit choices will be predictable is if the same two players play the same two sides in the same month of the same year with Fixed Rarity over and over again. And how stupid would someone have to be to do that? Any two players that do this deserve one another and should not waste their time posting here because we will all just laugh at them

As I said before... this is much ado about nothing IMHO

Steve

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

[QB]I can say that we did not design Rarity to cater to Ladder players, so it would not surprise me if such players have a different opinion about what Rarity should be.

Well, as I was trying to argue, variable rarity like that seen in Dan's post shouldn't cause Ladder players who like being encouraged to use historic forces (those who'd use Vrarity, those who already don't like to use "cookie cutter" forces) any anxiety... And not just because Tigers were cheap in the example given. However:

A Ladder or other highly competative venue could always avoid the whole issue by turning off rarity, and giving each player a sort of virtual OOB based on rarity: Each player is assigned so many of each unit type, and can only use each unit once within each "cycle." (Time, tourney, whatever.) A LOT of book keeping, but I think it sounds kinda fun. (Come to think of it, I dimly remember some table-top tactical-level type games mentioning something like that for pseudo-campaigns. I can't remember which, though.)

Anything that undermines keeping rare things an uncommon sight on the virtual battlefield is a bad thing.

Anything? Oh, deary me.

[Battlefront.com]

Tarqulene,

Yup, I personally think that Rarity (either kind) will really seperate the men from the weenies in Ladder play. By weenies I mean people who only play to win and for the sake of winning. I am very much "it is not if you win or lose, it is how you play the game" sort of person in all aspects of competition (sports, games, friendly wagers, etc.) Mind you, winning is a great thing. But doing through exploiting the game system... hollow victory IMHO.

As for the my quote there at the bottom of your post, I meant that in the context of Rarity system. Anything that works to undermine the core purpose is not a good thing. Just in case I was misunderstood

Steve