Topic: Balance Poll

[FPF-DieHard]

Just trolling for opinions.

[Mog]

I've always said less is more when it comes to cheese and fun in sfc. That being said, I don't have any problems with solo escorts or commando ships. They are quite beatable without resorting to cheese. My main beef has always been attrition units.

[KBFLordKrueg]

Well, just to be clear, "cheese" refers to attrition units (such as carriers)  or are you talking about escorts and commando ships?

[FPF-DieHard]

Well, just to be clear, "cheese" refers to attrition units (such as carriers)  or are you talking about escorts and commando ships?

Good point, let me change the poll . . .

Poll is changed, I want it to be very basic, black and white, and vague.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Well, just to be clear, "cheese" refers to attrition units (such as carriers)  or are you talking about escorts and commando ships?

Good point, let me change the poll . . .

Poll is changed, I want it to be very basic, black and white, and vague.

I voted less, but would have voted for a third option if available "Can be a combination of less or more, but when in doubt go with less".  Also, sometimes (like with commando, escorts and Tugs) more doesn't have to necessarily mean less balanced, it could just mean more variety.

[KAT J'inn]

" Blame J'inn, the MIRVs were not my idea!"

LIES!!  ROTTEN FED LIES!!!


Here is the TRUTH . . . .  <pulls out MSN Transcript>


Krueg:   Gosh J'inn I think fighting Feds is boring. Let's make the Mirak meaner.

J'inn:  Well I dunno Krueg.  I mean I fily Mirak and all and well I think I'm mean enough.

Krueg: True,  you are the good lord's gift to the Mirak, but as for the rest of them, I want a challange.

J'inn:  I could fly more.

Krueg: No No you would overly dominate the game it would be unfair.

J'inn: <sigh>  Yes I suppose you are right.

Krueg: I know, lets give the Mirak their MIRVs.

J'inn:  <GASP>

Krueg:  They are supposed to have them.  They are already in the shiplist. And the only reason they weren't fully in GW1 is because you screwed up.

J'inn:  ALRIGHT!!  Can't I ever live it down. SHEESH!!

Krueg: PLEASE!!!! I need a challange.

J'inn: Oh alright!!

Krueg: Now can we go back to GSA so you can keep teaching Saxon and me all of those neato moves you have.

J'inn: SUre buddy.

Krueg:  <sigh> I only hope to be as good a pilot as you one day J'inn. <sigh>

J'inn:  I know I know.   Keep your chin up.



So you see.   It was Krueg's fault.


 

[FPF-DieHard]

"Can be a combination of less or more, but when in doubt go with less". 

I am in total agreement with you there.

[Father Ted]

" Blame J'inn, the MIRVs were not my idea!"

LIES!!  ROTTEN FED LIES!!!


Here is the TRUTH . . . .  <pulls out MSN Transcript>


Krueg:   Gosh J'inn I think fighting Feds is boring. Let's make the Mirak meaner.

J'inn:  Well I dunno Krueg.  I mean I fily Mirak and all and well I think I'm mean enough.

Krueg: True,  you are the good lord's gift to the Mirak, but as for the rest of them, I want a challange.

J'inn:  I could fly more.

Krueg: No No you would overly dominate the game it would be unfair.

J'inn: <sigh>  Yes I suppose you are right.

Krueg: I know, lets give the Mirak their MIRVs.

J'inn:  <GASP>

Krueg:  They are supposed to have them.  They are already in the shiplist. And the only reason they weren't fully in GW1 is because you screwed up.

J'inn:  ALRIGHT!!  Can't I ever live it down. SHEESH!!

Krueg: PLEASE!!!! I need a challange.

J'inn: Oh alright!!

Krueg: Now can we go back to GSA so you can keep teaching Saxon and me all of those neato moves you have.

J'inn: SUre buddy.

Krueg:  <sigh> I only hope to be as good a pilot as you one day J'inn. <sigh>

J'inn:  I know I know.   Keep your chin up.



So you see.   It was Krueg's fault.


 

Pulls out my favorite Minister of Information tool:

[Gook]

Not sure what you mean by less and more?

Are we talking about rules, ships, or what?

[Kroma BaSyl]

Not sure what you mean by less and more?

Are we talking about rules, ships, or what?

I read it as ships.

[KBFLordKrueg]

" Blame J'inn, the MIRVs were not my idea!"

LIES!!  ROTTEN FED LIES!!!


Here is the TRUTH . . . .  <pulls out MSN Transcript>


Krueg:   Gosh J'inn I think fighting Feds is boring. Let's make the Mirak meaner.

J'inn:  Well I dunno Krueg.  I mean I fily Mirak and all and well I think I'm mean enough.

Krueg: True,  you are the good lord's gift to the Mirak, but as for the rest of them, I want a challange.

J'inn:  I could fly more.

Krueg: No No you would overly dominate the game it would be unfair.

J'inn: <sigh>  Yes I suppose you are right.

Krueg: I know, lets give the Mirak their MIRVs.

J'inn:  <GASP>

Krueg:  They are supposed to have them.  They are already in the shiplist. And the only reason they weren't fully in GW1 is because you screwed up.

J'inn:  ALRIGHT!!  Can't I ever live it down. SHEESH!!

Krueg: PLEASE!!!! I need a challange.

J'inn: Oh alright!!

Krueg: Now can we go back to GSA so you can keep teaching Saxon and me all of those neato moves you have.

J'inn: SUre buddy.

Krueg:  <sigh> I only hope to be as good a pilot as you one day J'inn. <sigh>

J'inn:  I know I know.   Keep your chin up.



So you see.   It was Krueg's fault.


 

Pulls out my favorite Minister of Information tool:

I think Father Ted has hit it right on the head...
Jinn, you Bastage!

[Gook]

So it should read:

Less ships

More ships

Is that correct?

[Hexx]

I say less ships if it gets rid of those HDWs..

[TotensBurntCorpse]

I think more is better.

OPPPPPEEEENNNN THEEEE CHEEEEEZEEEE FACTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sigh

[Kroma BaSyl]

So it should read:

Less ships

More ships

Is that correct?

Actually, there is a subtle difference in what you are implying or is implied in that explaination. I don't think the question is "Balance is better achieved by having less ships (or more ships)", so much as "Balance  is better achieved by subtracting ships (or adding them)".  Thus is it better to try and achieve balance by adding ships to a races list where they have holes in their list or subtracting the ships from their opponents list that cause the imbalance in the first place.

[762_XC]

I've always said less is more when it comes to cheese and fun in sfc. That being said, I don't have any problems with solo escorts or commando ships. They are quite beatable without resorting to cheese. My main beef has always been attrition units.

If you keep escorts with true carriers (where they belong), you solve both issues at once.

[Lepton]

I like the idea of this poll, but I have to say that it's vagueness may result in nothing useful as it will depend on how people interpret add and subtract.  And of course the results will be like a Rorshact test of interpretation.

[IAF Lyrkiller]

I though normally dont get involved w/ these debates, i will say this: you cant balance the races no matter what you do. someone is going to cry foul.

But on the other hand, adding said ships would give us more flavour.

just my 2 pfgs.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I though normally dont get involved w/ these debates, i will say this: you cant balance the races no matter what you do. someone is going to cry foul.

no doubt, someone will always bitch, but it is in fact possible to actually balance the lists. Think combined shiplist.

But on the other hand, adding said ships would give us more flavour.

There are no "said" ships though, just a general phylisophical debate about whether "less is more", "less is less", "more is more" or "more is less"..hmmm....more or less..

[Capt Jeff]

It kinda depends on what the "more" is.

More Line ships?  Not bad idea.

More bombardment ships, carriers, escorts?   Probably not....

Then again, I attempted a while back to make a more capable Hydran BCH that didn't rely so much on attrition and that got struck down or watered down to where it needed fighters to compete again.   So, I guess it's hard to say...

[FPF-DieHard]

. . .  And of course the results will be like a Rorshact test of interpretation.

Somebody gets what I'm going for . . .

[Capt Jeff]

Of course,

as a example, removing the F-BCE, NCM, CAI from the shiplist is technically less, but what it does is make the yards produce MORE of what people might actually be wanting to fly....... 

[Bonk]

I though normally dont get involved w/ these debates, i will say this: you cant balance the races no matter what you do. someone is going to cry foul.

no doubt, someone will always bitch, but it is in fact possible to actually balance the lists. Think combined shiplist.

But on the other hand, adding said ships would give us more flavour.

There are no "said" ships though, just a general phylisophical debate about whether "less is more", "less is less", "more is more" or "more is less"..hmmm....more or less..

More is better. There.

[el-Karnak]

More of page 3 is better. 

[Bonk]

More of page 3 is better. 

 

[Kroma BaSyl]

More of page 3 is better. 

 

I don't know about that, as 3 on page 3 might be a bit disturbing, unless the third one is one her back, you know for dancing.

[Bonk]

More of page 3 is better. 

 

I don't know about that, as 3 on page 3 might be a bit disturbing, unless the third one is one her back, you know for dancing.

Well there goes the balance... shows to go ya that unbalanced is not necessarily bad... look at DH and Likkerpig.

[Julin Eurthyr]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

It's easier to add to a deficient situation instead of removing something the players already have...

IMO, the lack of SFB-restrictions but the inclusion of all limited ships, put us in a "Monty Haul" situation here.  Let's cut out the cheese first (preety much done), then start adding in certain areas by little bits in order to bring up or balance the situation.

Thing is, I don't see balance cut and dried as in "everyone needs a 50/50 shot in a fight at 180 BPV."  I see balance as being on a spectrum between hex-flipping speed or PvP.  The best hex flippers are not PvP optimized, and the best PvP ships are frequently slow hex-flippers.

Also, subtraction does not need to automatically mean removal from the game.  As long as we subtract enough from cheese ships so they aren't an overpowering cheese factor anymore, then we can still let them be used while "subtracting" the cheese.

I've got some ideas, I got to get them on paper here someday...

[FPF-DieHard]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

[Hexx]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

I just took the idea from one of Salvatore's stories..

" oops you trip, layer goes, some kid throws a stone , layer goes..."

[FPF-DieHard]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

I just took the idea from one of Salvatore's stories..

" oops you trip, layer goes, some kid throws a stone , layer goes..."

Silent Blade?   Great book.   "Servant of the Shard" was the best one IMHO.

[Hexx]

Yeah.
I've decided that anything he writes without Drizzt is far better than anything with.
Personally I liked "Silent Blade" a little more than "Servant of the Shard" , but they're still my 2 favourite.

[alfman]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

[FPF-DieHard]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

How bad is Haste in 3.0?   I stuck with 2nd edition until I stopped playing back in 2001

[alfman]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

How bad is Haste in 3.0?   I stuck with 2nd edition until I stopped playing back in 2001

It allowed spellcasters to cast 2 spells per round!
They nerfed it in 3.5. Thank God!

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

 

[kbf-jd]

You cannot achieve balance by adding....

You only piss off someone that did not get anything, then you have to give them something to make up...

repeat....

However, there are places where you CAN add something reasonable, when all agree.  There are Mirak BCHs that most people find reasonable.  And few people oppose adding "some" drones to klingon carriers.  But these are the exception, not the rule....

In these cases, there are noted problems that are being corrected...

jd

[FPF-DieHard]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

How bad is Haste in 3.0?   I stuck with 2nd edition until I stopped playing back in 2001

It allowed spellcasters to cast 2 spells per round!
They nerfed it in 3.5. Thank God!

Dear God!  Ever get the felling that WOTC had no clue?

[Hexx]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

How bad is Haste in 3.0?   I stuck with 2nd edition until I stopped playing back in 2001

It allowed spellcasters to cast 2 spells per round!
They nerfed it in 3.5. Thank God!

Dear God!  Ever get the felling that WOTC had no clue?

WOTC had no clue about game balance.
TSR had no clue about running a successful business.

[alfman]

I prefer balance by subtraction...

I remember a line in many Game Master guides for RP games, concerning "Monty Haul" or "Cheesy" campaigns...

Kinda off-topic, but have any of you ever DM'd a second addition AD&D campaign and wanted to strangle your PCs over the Stoneskin spell?

YES

and haste in 3.0

How bad is Haste in 3.0?   I stuck with 2nd edition until I stopped playing back in 2001

It allowed spellcasters to cast 2 spells per round!
They nerfed it in 3.5. Thank God!

Dear God!  Ever get the felling that WOTC had no clue?

WOTC had no clue about game balance.
TSR had no clue about running a successful business.

I have played since the red box days and 3.5 is the best yet. All good game systems change over time and need to be rebalanced after each edition. 3.0 was a radical change and it was not surprising that some imbalances made it to the public. 3.5 corrects most of the problems and adds a little spice to the game as well. Second edition was a major change over first ,but the gulf was wider between 2cnd and 3rd so i'm not surprised.

[Kroma BaSyl]

However, there are places where you CAN add something reasonable, when all agree.  There are Mirak BCHs that most people find reasonable.  And few people oppose adding "some" drones to klingon carriers.  But these are the exception, not the rule....

In these cases, there are noted problems that are being corrected...

Still waiting for that extra power on the G-BCH.

[Rod ONeal]

The questions for the pole are fine. Keep in mind that the criteria for your answer for such questions is, "which do you agree with more". Don't over analyze. Forget about the grey areas and think in black and white terms.

With that said, It's probably easier to balance by subtraction, but more preferable (fun/interesting) to balance by addition.

[KBF-Crim]

One answer leads logically to tourney ships only...

The other leads to everything else...

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

Question is overly simplistic in my view, really depends on what is added and what is subtracted.  I usually tend towards subtractions and look that direction with more friendliness, but there have been times when adding is the better way.

[Grim]

I dont see how a pure balance can be achieved at all, like people have previously said in the thread one race is likely to feel screwed over. Besides the game isnt supposed to be totally balanced, what with one race having advantage over another and vice versa.

Adding ships is the only way to go imo, you cant nerf existing ships to achieved balance without pissing people off.