Topic: Balance Poll

[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.