Jump to content

Odd CAV 2.0 beta Question


Erion
 Share

Recommended Posts

since I'm bored at work waiting for people to get their end of 2004 reports to me, I figured I'd try to stat up some of the new units for CAV 2.0.

 

Once I get them done, who do I send them to or should I just post them here for review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Since i don' have a say in such things this is a unqualified guess and WILL NOT be taken as law, but i would say after we get all the current units locked down. right now what we really need is feed back on the units that are already out there. Suggestions on point costs for SA's and concerns with the units as they are shown now.

 

I've seen allot of good suggestions on rules and such but i would like to hear concerns with the units that were sent out as well.

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the writers: Remember that *now* is the time to get the basis for the points system right. I recommend the use of mathematics and statistics over TLAR ("That Looks About Right"). Playtest the mathematical theories and alter them accordingly, but don't pull number out of thin air. Oh, and *please* don't make two units with identical stats have different point values because they're from different factions.

 

For an excellent primer on stats-based point systems, buy all of Dan Kast's games (Majestic 12 Games) and write off the (quite moderate) expense as "research materials." A space combat game such as Starmada X is simpler than CAV, but the new simplicity of CAV 2.0 comes close enough that you should be able to follow a similar pattern (without plagiarising, of course, though if approached correctly he might license some stuff for, at most, a nominal fee).

 

Darn, now it's in my head and I'm thinking about it. Assume the ability to do a point of damage in a round is worth a certain value, and multiply that by correction factors for accuracy (straightforward stats based on average defense) and range (a bit of guesswork, but start with double the range = double the points). You should probably factor speed into range, using (range + speed) as the range to start with, though it may turn out that .75*speed is closer. Multiply that by the number of guns and a longevity factor (start with sqrt(damage tracks), since effectiveness drops drastically with damage) and you should have your offensive rating (excluding special abilities, which should be done only after you have a working vanilla points system).

Figure a defense rating based on defense, number of tracks (which could be included after offense/defense, since it appears in both), and probably a bit of speed, since it can help you find cover. Pointing things like stealth correctly will be very important, but again should wait until after the basic system is working correctly. Working correctly is equal point totals of disparate numbers should be evenly matched in straight up fights in playtesting. These test fights should have even or nearly-even numbers of units at first to avoid the "fuzzy-wuzzy" factor. CAV should be more resistant to that than many games, since guns only do a single point of damage, reducing the overkill of puny units.

Finally, combine the offense and defense into a single point total. Adding them together may work, but treating them as orthogonal vectors may be better (points = sqrt(offense^2 + defense^2)). That assumes, however, that offense and defense are equal, which is the real trick; depending on testing, the final point total might be more like offense + 0.5*defense. This can even be tweaked to encourage certain styles of play -- if defense is expensive for its in-game effectiveness, people will load up on guns and hope to kill their opponents quickly.

 

CAV 2.0 has the potential to be a great game (I already like the flow of the new rules), but I'd hate to see it crippled by either broken-point units or constant revision as people come up with new tactics that break the point system (*cough*MWDA*cough*).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the data shown on the data cards is calcualted using some proven systems. Nothing is just pulled out of thin air, but thank you for the suggestions.

 

Everything is being tested before the points are locked down, that why this first batch of units had arbitrary numbers shown.

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does that mean that even the points values shown in the Beta Document are not necessarily correct for the unit if it lacked any special equipment?

 

If those point values are truly arbitrary (meaning they have no relevance at all to the unit's abilities) then we are currently in no position to be suggesting S/A, instant, and Upgrade point values, except in the most general and relative terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the data shown on the data cards is calcualted using some proven systems.  Nothing is just pulled out of thin air, but thank you for the suggestions.

"Thin air" was a poor choice of words on my part; my apologies.

 

Any chance the point system can be made public, or at least included in the next private beta? Our feedback may be improved by being able to give quantitative, rather than just qualitative, feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erion, none of the points currently should be considered correct until final publication, sorry wish i had a better answer then that for you on that. Thats why when Matt sent out the beta info he mentioned play with out points in mind, play to test the stats and the rules.

 

Joel47, as for making the calculations public, that is a question for way above my pay grade, and I would probably say it would be a negative answer.

 

Ok as for point costs to SA's, Instants and Upgrades lets do this break them down into three point cost structures, low, med, high Thus if you think Hunter is powerful but not to bad you might rate it a med level, where as the WMD FIST instant makes you queasy when you see it on the field you would rate it a High level.

 

Mad Pat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...