Tactical Command | View topic - Variable titan configuration

Page 3 of 7

[ 95 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Variable titan configuration

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:36 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(CAL001 @ Sep. 15 2006,08:47)

QUOTE

E&C have you thought of Polling this one to see what the popular concensus is? Add a link and post on SG to get a bigger feel for what people want. It is a good debate about the future of titans within the game, however some people may not post their opinion. It would be good to capture their thoughts through a vote.

Cheers
CAL

I'll start one up today.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

tchristney

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:00 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:05 am
Posts: 352
Location: Victoria BC, Canada

nealhunt: maybe I'm not understanding the way you are using "synergy" here, but I feel like we are talking about different things. I am talking about design philosophy here. I think it is important that players are able to load out their titans with the weapons of their choosing. Everything else I said is based upon that philosophical principle.

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:44 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

From the poll thread by E&C, that Pro/Con list is heinously biased.

========

This system results in 'bland' Titans...

Judgemental and prejudicial. I don't find the weapons in the AMTL list to be bland, nor do many others.

Certain Titan configurations undoubtedly result in underpriced, cheap & over-effective support for certain armies

Underpriced? Yes. Design has to err on the side of caution and therefore prices are based on optimal use. Any sub-optimal combo will be underpowered. Of course, the same is true of a point-based system as well.

Cheap and overeffective? No. That contains an assumption that the design team will fail which is baseless.

Weapons system combinations are not limited in the background, but they are in this type of list to prevent Titans becoming too powerful.

Objectively false. The background material contains all kinds of references to various "rare" techs that would apply to titan weapons, e.g. the warp technology of Vortex missiles is supposed to be incredibly rare. The titan rules have had all sorts of restrictions that prevented certain weapon combos based on various systems,from the relatively detailed hardpoint system used in AT to the simplistic arm/carapace divisions of other systems. Finally, and as I pointed out previously, a very brief review of the discussion surrounding the tactical/support weapon division is matching that background text, NOT balance.

- Head / Upgrade types have to be limited in number otherwise the principle of simplicity behind the list is lost.

Again, this is based on the assumption that the design team would automatically fail if they tried to include these kinds of options.

SECOND SYSTEM -

Pros:

- With a wider variety of weapons stats available, interesting & flavourful weapons like the Vortex Missile, the Warp Missile, the Head varients etc, can be returned to Epic: Armageddon.

Assumes that variety both requires and produces "interesting and flavorful weapons," neither of which is necessarily true.

- Unlike with the single-cost system, cheap synergistic combinations will not exist.

Assumes that the design team will automatically succeed in successful balance. That's not a valid assumption as failed attempts at point sytems are legion.

This system is more like the background (Where weapon systems are not limited) than the one-cost system.

False. See above.

- Upgrade modifications do not have to be so strictly limited in number.

Again, more underlying assumptions. This assumes that both a fixed cost system does not have sufficient variety to provide distinct flavor and feel and that the variety afforded by variable costs is necessary and/or effective at producing the same.

_________________
Neal

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:51 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(nealhunt @ Sep. 15 2006,19:44)

QUOTE

I'm heinous.

Certain Titan configurations undoubtedly result in underpriced, cheap & over-effective support for certain armies

Underpriced? Yes. Design has to err on the side of caution and therefore prices are based on optimal use. Any sub-optimal combo will be underpowered. Of course, the same is true of a point-based system as well.

Fine, that has some truth, but the AMTL one-cost fits all breaks your theory, as the original cost of the titans was set in the E:A book, thus all the optimal configurations are undercosted in comparison.

Your theory also means that all non-optimal titans will never be worth taking, as they will all be hideously overpriced.

This is not so with a modular list.

Weapons system combinations are not limited in the background, but they are in this type of list to prevent Titans becoming too powerful.

Objectively false. The background material contains all kinds of references to various "rare" techs that would apply to titan weapons, e.g. the warp technology of Vortex missiles is supposed to be incredibly rare. The titan rules have had all sorts of restrictions that prevented certain weapon combos based on various systems,from the relatively detailed hardpoint system used in AT to the simplistic arm/carapace divisions of other systems.

Yes but 'rare' Titans do exist, and it's my impression that in all the other Epic systems you've been allowed to build them. Why only E:A that applies such stringent rules, which do go against the background.

All 'support' Titans exist in the background. All 'Close Combat' titans exist in the background. These are expressly forbidden by the rules of the AMTL list, that's against the background.

Finally, and as I pointed out previously, a very brief review of the discussion surrounding the tactical/support weapon division is matching that background text, NOT balance.

Yet it primarily works as a balancing mechanism in-game. Otherwise why are all the Tactical weapons inferior weapons. It's a balancing mechanism that is nessesary in lieu of a points system.

- Head / Upgrade types have to be limited in number otherwise the principle of simplicity behind the list is lost.

Again, this is based on the assumption that the design team would automatically fail if they tried to include these kinds of options.

No, it's based on the assumption that it's against the ethos of a one-cost fits-all list. Please don't misrepresent my words as slur against the capable people who put together the AMTL list.

- With a wider variety of weapons stats available, interesting & flavourful weapons like the Vortex Missile, the Warp Missile, the Head varients etc, can be returned to Epic: Armageddon.

Assumes that variety both requires and produces "interesting and flavorful weapons," neither of which is necessarily true.

I don't see how you can argue against the possibility of this one.

- Unlike with the single-cost system, cheap synergistic combinations will not exist.

Assumes that the design team will automatically succeed in successful balance. That's not a valid assumption as failed attempts at point sytems are legion.

Assuming that any attempt to write a balanced modular list is doomed to failure is equally invalid.

We're looking at possibilities and precedent.

It's been done before, and it works better, so we should try, IMHO.

This system is more like the background (Where weapon systems are not limited) than the one-cost system.

False. See above.
Untrue.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:56 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Hena @ Sep. 15 2006,19:52)

QUOTE

(tchristney @ Sep. 15 2006,19:00)

QUOTE

I would say that then you should do AMTL army. I don't think that that kind of configuration is something that should be available to IG or Marines. They get sent the basic stuff, while ATML builds are refit what they need.

The whole idea is that lists are not just same as everyone else and this is a step towards it.

Titans always were available in multiple configurations to all Imperial armies, it's only production limitations (SG is poor!) that have prevented variant titan weapons coming back.

The game is less strong without them.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:21 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

(Hena @ Sep. 15 2006,21:03)

QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Sep. 15 2006,22:51)

QUOTE

We're looking at possibilities and precedent.

It's been done before, and it works better, so we should try, IMHO.

I dunno. One thing that I always hated (and still hate actually) in 40k and fantasy battle was the "super heroes". They are the ones with all the best equipment stacked into one costly character.

This is what the point cost system allows. The tactical / support weapon division prevents this. As there is no way to get all 4 points (+1 in head) to carry the support weapon. And that is a good thing. I don't want to see the "uber-killing-super-invulnerable-combos-that-cost-arm-and-leg" to appear (which explains my reluctance towards mega gargant and imperator).

Luckily, with a limited number of weapon slots, said mega-titans tend to be inflexible overbalanced nightmares.

A Warlord with 4x Volcano Cannons & a Deathstrike head.... It might take down a Reaver Titan in a single turn... or it might take down 4 bases of guardsmen, having fired its Deathstrike on the previous turn, and lacking any appropriate targets for the Volcano Cannons.

Oh, and here's the cost of that monster under our modular list: 1095 points.

So he's not even legal for a standard sized game...

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

nealhunt

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:07 pm

Purestrain

Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA

E&C: You have 2 basic points here. 1) per-weapon point costs are more accurate and 2) greater range of potential ability of titan weapons means better flavor.

Those seem intuitively obvious at first glance but upon reflection, neither is necessarily true. In fact, actual game results pretty much disprove both of them.

I just pulled a couple representative quotes rather than a line-by-line response.

Pricing:
Your theory also means that all non-optimal titans will never be worth taking, as they will all be hideously overpriced.

This is not so with a modular list.

The real test is in-game play balance. Unless the simpler system has a problem, you're just adding complexity for no discernible benfit, i.e. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Does the fixed price system result in a problem with respect to in-game balance? No. It's been challenged repeatedly. Dysartes requested on multiple occasions that people submit both ideas and playtests to try to break the weapon selection system in the current playtest list and no one has put forth anything that showed more than minor stat tweaks were needed.

If you think there are loopholes or problems with the system, simply go demonstrate that it is broken. Throw out the weapon combos that you think will break the AMTL list and post playtest results.

Right now, all you have is a theory that is directly contradicted by dozens of playtests and several direct challenges.

Yes but 'rare' Titans do exist, and it's my impression that in all the other Epic systems you've been allowed to build them... All 'support' Titans exist in the background. All 'Close Combat' titans exist in the background. These are expressly forbidden by the rules of the AMTL list, that's against the background.

Not every freakishly rare piece of background needs to be represented in the game. They should only be included if they make a difference in the game play.

As I stated earlier, variety does not equate to flavor or interest in the game. Never has, never will. It can improve the game experience up to a certain point, but in the end too much detail interferes with the game experience. The gaming industry is littered with the corpses of intricately detailed but failed games as testament to overlooking that basic fact.

There are tons of reported games and results that show that the current system results in a wide range of strategic and tactical decisions based on titan armament.

So again, you are claiming something in contradiction to reported results. It is up to you to you illustrate that the "rare" titans allow substantially different and, just as importantly, improved game experience. Demonstrate situations in which your tactical choices would be substantially different based on the added detail.

In short, the current system works so the burden of proof is on you to show that changes are needed.

_________________
Neal

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:27 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

If you think there are loopholes or problems with the system, simply go demonstrate that it is broken. Throw out the weapon combos that you think will break the AMTL list and post playtest results.

Right now, all you have is a theory that is directly contradicted by dozens of playtests and several direct challenges.

Got it.

I don't want to change the AMTL list. It's fine from what I hear, slightly overpowered by most accounts but that may be down to its unusual playstyle and enemy unfamiliarity rather than innate power.

The changes I and others are proposing are for Titans in other Imperial armies.

We want a balanced system for including other Titan weapons in our non-AMTL armies. The AMTL list doesn't work, because when using one-cost titans synergistic relationships make it so that it's only worth taking a limited number of Titan varients with each army type.

In short, the current system works so the burden of proof is on you to show that changes are needed.

The only way to balance titans for other armies is to point them on a weapon-by-weapon basis, or on weapon-patters (hun, goth etc). That's all we're saying.

I at least don't mind what happens to the AMTL list, it's just a side effect of the effort we've put into overall list-balance that the modular costs we've spun up generate very similar total points costs for most 'normal' AMTL armies.

What I mind is finding a way to generate a list that makes Titans balanced for games with other armies, where they ought to belong. One-cost titans don't belong there, because as you've said yourself, people just end up taking the same two or three configurations because they're most efficient.

And yeah, having more flavourful weapons like Vortex missiles that actually generate a Vortex on the table is cool.

Demonstrate situations in which your tactical choices would be substantially different based on the added detail.

Under one-cost Titans when using my Marines, I'd use a 2-melta, 2-volcano Warlord, or thereabouts, all that cheap TK.

Under modular Titans, such a Titan is over-expensive, I end up taking cheaper varients most of the time, because that's my preference sometimes, cheaper Titans so I can squeeze another couple of Hunters or something into my list.

Quantifiably different army list composition, because the most suitable titan no longer costs the same as the least.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

BlackLegion

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:43 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

There are two approache shere:

- calculate the weapons effectivenes to match its price

- calculate the weapons price to match its effectivenes.

The first will end weapons which habe ingenral the same effect. Regardless if you take a warlord with 4 vulcano-cannons or with 4 turbo-laser-destructors. The damage potential would be the same. Tthe example is more obvious with the various close comnbat weapons. If you have a high number of Extra Attacks, the damage will benormal, if you have a low number of Extra Attack the damage will be MacroWeapon or even TitanKiller.
In the end the damage output will be roughly the same, regardless of weapon...which is boooring.

The second will end in weapons wich are very different in its effectivenes. There willbe weapons wich sweeep half a formation away and others wich can barely scratch it. But the first will have a high points cost while the letter will be much cheaper.

I prefer the latter version, because so you can desigh the titans weapons so that they match its description and feel. Ypu canhave a cheap CloseCombatWeapon wich give +1 ExtraAttack and is TK(1) (a Laserburner if you follow old fluff), or you can get a costly CloseCombatWeapon wich give +3 ExtraAttacks and is TK(D3) (a Power Fist).
It doesn't matter if a weapon is overpowered...just increase its price then.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Top

Darkling

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:21 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:35 pm
Posts: 4

I know I shouldn't stick my nose in here, but I can't help it.

One thing that should be considered is, whatever direction you take, will it ever get the GW/SG official seal of approval?

Most likely, a resounding NO.

One of the great benefits of a fan-driven set of rules is that there can be more than one direction taken. Group A can have their titans one way, and group B can have their titans this other way. Both concepts can be thoroughly tested and balanced. It may take a bit longer to get there if everyone isn't working on the same project, but realistically, how much are you going to contribute to the developement of a system you don't agree with?

I say both sides make valid points. Both systems seem to have merits. Why not do both and give players the chance to choose which they prefer to use?

How much work could have been done while you're debating over which path to take?

Sorry if this is out of line, I just feel there's room for more than one way to do things.

Top

Evil and Chaos

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:07 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire

One thing that should be considered is, whatever direction you take, will it ever get the GW/SG official seal of approval?

It's quite possible that it can be made official.

Several people who visit this very website have written armylists/rules modifications that are now considered either fully official or high probability candidates to obtain official status.

That's the beauty of the Epic development system these days, it is largely fan/consensus driven.

Why not do both and give players the chance to choose which they prefer to use?

Both systems do exist at the current time.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Top

Honda

Post subject: Variable titan configuration

Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:26 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:44 pm
Posts: 1891
Location: Katy, Republic of Texas

Since we're all sharing our opinions, I'll throw mine in because I haven't seen this point brought up yet and it kind of travels down the path of "unintended" consequences.

A variable pointed system for Titan weapons will change the overall emphasis of the game mechanics and that is a bad thing

E&C, what is not being considered is that EA is all about the interactions between the little guys and tanks and artillery and to some extent things that fly. It is not intended to be a vehicle whose sole purpose is to provide targets for Titans.

JJ stated very early in the redesign work that the intent of the game system was to de-emphasize Titans as that led to (paraphrasing) limited gaming options and that focusing on unit interaction amongst infantry, tanks, and such allowed for more gaming options. In essence, he observed that the Titan based games soon lost their attractiveness to the general gaming community faster than gaming systems that did not.

To paraphrase again, "I've got my three , you have yours" and how many different things can we really do with them. His observations were...not enough to keep the game interesting. That had financial implications and he wanted a gaming system that wouldn't crash as quickly as E40K, even though in his opinion, that was the best design he ever came up with (which I agree with).

Jumping back to my own opinions, I don't like Titans and would prefer to see everything larger than a Warhound taken off the table, but that's just a personal preference. I know you're going to say, "you don't have to play with Titans if you don't want to", which I fully understand. However, I don't want to play against them either. I like what the current mechanics emphasize now and don't see a need to change. And whether you believe this or not, changing how Titans interact with all the other units will significantly change how others approach the game.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't develop a the variable cost system that you and others have proposed. However, I would never want to see it used in anything other than friendly or scenario play because of what it would do to the overall game. If you wanted to build a "Titan on Titan" game that used these cost adjustments, that would be great. Then those that like Titans that much could use them in a way that would best add value to the exercise.

So, to summarize, I would have to line up to support Neal and Hena on this issue. What you are doing and proposing is good work, but it should not be introduced into the core set of EA rules.

_________________
Honda

"Remember Taros? We do"

- 23rd Elysian Drop Regiment

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 3 of 7

[ 95 posts ]

Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Variable titan configuration

Who is online