Hena:
Quote:
Because it leads to min-maxing. Eg. Which combinations of upgrades leads to best result. If everything (bar one) is 25 then there is no "the best" selection set that easily as other set of selections can be equally good. Did that make sense as I'm hitting the limits of my ability to explain this better
.
Others have already pointed out that this is
not min-maxing. I'm going to explain why what you're saying
encourages what you claim to be so terrible.
Let's say we have three upgrades. One is 'worth' five points, one is worth 'twenty-five' points, and one is 'worth' thirty-five points.
What should their costs be. All twenty-five? Then the third option is clearly superior for the cost, and the first clearly inferior. People will take the third option often, the second option occasionally, and the first option never.
Free, twenty-five and fifty respectively? Then the first option is clearly superior (and since it is free, will be taken ridiculously often). The second option will, again, be taken occasionally, and the third option never.
Having everything be increments of twenty-five is fine, except that there is no real guarantee that two twenty-five point upgrades are equally effective. Pricing two different options the same can work sometimes, but sometimes it can create one option which is much better or one that is much worse - and that is what people will take.
The value of a unit is not the same as its price. Forcing all prices to conform to an arbitrary standard means that some units will give you more value for your points.
Make sense?
Quote:
The combinations can grow huge. Overall it's a lot easier to cut down on that instead of trying to playtest every single variation to make sure that no over powering combination comes to play. The cost of a thing is not only about it's own stats but also depends on how it interacts with others. This fact causes the combinatorial problem. It's much easier to deal with it, but removing it from core and not allowing it to happen.
The combinations can, indeed, grow huge. But there are three points I feel should be made to that.
Firstly, that the combinations can grow huge does not mean we cannot have points costs that aren't in twenty-five point increments.
Second, you need not necessarily add many options. Nor do some variants need playtesting to determine if they're overpowered - adding Dreadnoughts to a Terminator formation, for example.
Finally, playtesting and dealing with combinations is kind of the point of NetEA. Many players have expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of the list (I personally think that charging every formation
except Thunderhawks for the ability to Air Assault is the list's chief problem, and solving that would go a long way to resolving many people's complaints, but that's another question). If the player base is unhappy with a list, it would seem unreasonable to at least try what they are concerned about. It's not like the old list will disappear if you playtest some new options.
Quote:
Besides it's not about the last few points. If you do it earlier you can multiply the effect. And that cannot be prevented if the possibilities exist in the first place.
Limit the upgrade to one per formation. Like most upgrades. If you can't take it that much, you can't min-max it.
In fact, considering the already fairly steep price of some Space Marine formations, I doubt upgrade-spam is going to become a problem.
Quote:
I don't think it's feasible. Most people don't have multiples of Attack Bikes to do that. Also the 5 point upgrades don't really make any sense. Overall I don't see it helping the basic list at all. Other Marine variants could make a separate Attack Bike formation for 175 if wanted.
And those people would
upgrade to bikes instead.
* * *
nealhunt:
Quote:
For example, 85 point Land Raiders don't give you an effective point break for taking just one. You have to take a pair to get 30 points discount to cover a 25 point increment. The "wasted" points are there intentionally. It gives an incentive to take them in pairs to minimize the loss of points rather than min-maxing something like Devs with 1 Land Raider, 1 Razorback and 1 Rhino. Basically, the "wasted" points keeps the min-max formation composition under control and more in line with the background. You can still do the 1LR/1Razorback/1Rhino combo if you like, but you end up paying effectively a 25 point premium to get that highly optimized and non-traditional composition.
Wait...so because people will take extra Razorbacks, the problem is with the Land Raider, and its points must be adjusted accordingly? As opposed to say, lying with the Razorback rule that allows people to take extra Razorbacks in ways that make no sense?
You wanna explain that one again for me? Slowly?
Quote:
However, if there are multiple 5/10/15 point options then that goes out the window. You can effectively min-max all sorts of freakish formation compositions without fear of "wasting" points. Take your goony Dev transports. You can always make up the points on another formation.
Er...
Show me an example in the fluff of how Devastators use Land Raiders as transports at all. I'll wait. If anything's goony, it's them having the option.
Secondly, the Land Raider option could represent Land Raiders assigned to the Devastators as fire support. Meaning 'goony' options would be perfectly reasonable - the Land Raiders aren't intended to be the primary transport.
