Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
04-02-2013, 12:46 PM
Post: #1
Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
While we have an extended beta on our hands and plenty of time for testing, how shall we shake up the racials? I know a lot of ideas have been posted before, let's re-share them and try it out.

Here's my stab, taken mostly from threads I've read in the past:

Small minded -> 2 cost ( was -3 )
Puts it on equal footing as broadfield. Both are different flavors of how you want to research (horizontally or vertically through the tree)

Tolerant -> 1 cost ( was 3 )
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Sanctioned Piracy -> 1 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Battlehardened -> 2 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 2 pt traits?

I think HGA should stay the same. It is a risk, but it is a risk that can pay off well.



I am only looking at adjusting point costs right now. Fundamentally changing how a trait works (looking at you high-low gravity) is out of scope.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 12:58 PM
Post: #2
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-02-2013 12:46 PM)rocco Wrote:  While we have an extended beta on our hands and plenty of time for testing, how shall we shake up the racials? I know a lot of ideas have been posted before, let's re-share them and try it out.

Here's my stab, taken mostly from threads I've read in the past:

Small minded -> 2 cost ( was -3 )
Puts it on equal footing as broadfield. Both are different flavors of how you want to research (horizontally or vertically through the tree)

Tolerant -> 1 cost ( was 3 )
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Sanctioned Piracy -> 1 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Battlehardened -> 2 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 2 pt traits?

I think HGA should stay the same. It is a risk, but it is a risk that can pay off well.



I am only looking at adjusting point costs right now. Fundamentally changing how a trait works (looking at you high-low gravity) is out of scope.

Those sound good to me. I would rename "small-minded" to "focused research" or something to reflect that it is a good thing.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2013, 11:54 PM
Post: #3
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
The earliest (tabletop) roleplaying games where "roll to build" systems, where you rolled the dice, and whatever you rolled, that's what you ended up with.

Later, as roleplaying evolved, systems were released that allowed players more choice in terms of how their stats, skills, etc were built up.

One system, the Hero System, allowed players to min/max very effectively - there was some simply math and rounding used in all skills, and if you could get just one point above the rounding, you'd get a bonus on your rolls.

People who did a lot of this min/max stuff were sometimes referred to as Munchkins - which meant more than just wiggling the numbers around to min/max, but to also game the entire system in the same way. This is represented in Steve Jackson's game, Munchkin...

A later system was Steve Jackson's GURPS - players had a great deal of creative control. Typically, you'd have a number of points you'd use to build your heroes, and then you could take disadvantages for more points, that you could use to up stats or skills, or to buy advantages.

In theory, disads hurt or challenged your play in some fashion, but a whole philosophy sprang up around playing to the disads - let them define your roleplaying character, and have them come up a lot in game.

(I know, tl;dr, but I'm getting somewhere).

One disadvantage in many point based systems is "Overconfident" - another is "Impulsive" - but these almost always seem to work as an advantage. Who wants a hero who hangs around deliberating on a course of action? Rushing in is a lot more fun - until the Gamemaster decides to create situations where rushing in ends up being bad...

Anyway - one of the things that often happens is that a player wants to bump a stat or skill, so they take a disad they think will be meaningless, just to get the bump. So, I'm "One-armed"... does that really matter? "One-eyed", too... okay...

I have found myself wanting "Advantages" (the bonuses to races), and trying to pick "Disadvantages" to pay for my Ads... and often ruing the fact that there aren't enough 1pt Ads or Disads...

So - yes, having more 1 pt choices seems good to me.

And having Disads (like Stinky or Unpleasant or Odious Personal Habits) that impact play are cool, too...

My experiences playing RPGs suggests that the definitions and the impacts of the Ads/Disads might be tweaked - I know not part of the discussion here - but it might be worthwhile to look at Character Creation in point based RPG systems with regards to Race Creation here.

As an aside, in most of the point bases systems I've played in, a Character gets a set number of points. Here, our races get 10. We can spend more than ten (buying Ads) if we take some negatives (disads).

But in the race creation system, it seems to work the opposite way - not by intention, I'm sure, but it seems like my Ads subtract points and my Disads add points.

I know that's how it ends up working - but if I take "Low Gravity Affinity" for +points, it feels like an advantage to me, when it is actually a disadvantage.

Hopefully that makes sense.

If this is something that you'd like to discuss further, I'd be happy to participate.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:41 AM
Post: #4
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-02-2013 12:46 PM)rocco Wrote:  Small minded -> 2 cost ( was -3 )
Puts it on equal footing as broadfield. Both are different flavors of how you want to research (horizontally or vertically through the tree)

I am almost thinking that these should cost 1 each. I don't know that people will take small-minded for what to most will feel like a 5-point cost (versus what they were used to).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:50 AM
Post: #5
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-03-2013 12:41 AM)Diebo Wrote:  I am almost thinking that these should cost 1 each. I don't know that people will take small-minded for what to most will feel like a 5-point cost (versus what they were used to).

Most feedback I've seen so far has suggested they flop points. So I imagine those that want it will still pay for it, and those that choose it for the free points will adjust accordingly.

I can't see making them 1-point traits. They are both powerful (depending on what your goal is).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 01:26 AM
Post: #6
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-03-2013 12:50 AM)rocco Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 12:41 AM)Diebo Wrote:  I am almost thinking that these should cost 1 each. I don't know that people will take small-minded for what to most will feel like a 5-point cost (versus what they were used to).

Most feedback I've seen so far has suggested they flop points. So I imagine those that want it will still pay for it, and those that choose it for the free points will adjust accordingly.

I can't see making them 1-point traits. They are both powerful (depending on what your goal is).

Fair enough. With the longer research tree, the game could very well be decided before all research is done. Either path (small-minded or broadfield) might get you closer to orbital labs than the normal path. Research will certainly be more strategic now.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 02:53 AM
Post: #7
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-02-2013 12:46 PM)rocco Wrote:  While we have an extended beta on our hands and plenty of time for testing, how shall we shake up the racials? I know a lot of ideas have been posted before, let's re-share them and try it out.

Here's my stab, taken mostly from threads I've read in the past:

Small minded -> 2 cost ( was -3 )
Puts it on equal footing as broadfield. Both are different flavors of how you want to research (horizontally or vertically through the tree)

Tolerant -> 1 cost ( was 3 )
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Sanctioned Piracy -> 1 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Battlehardened -> 2 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 2 pt traits?

I think HGA should stay the same. It is a risk, but it is a risk that can pay off well.



I am only looking at adjusting point costs right now. Fundamentally changing how a trait works (looking at you high-low gravity) is out of scope.

I like it. The only problem with Tolerant and Piracy becoming 1 point traits is that with the small-minded change I no longer NEED more 1 point traits, since my current build has 1 point left over, but after changing to accomodate small-minded no longer being -3 I'm going to be at 0 Tongue. I definitely think those 2 and battle-hardened becoming cheaper is a good thing though, as I've never picked any of those 3 in a game outside of Unlimited races...

GC ID - VanderLegion, GMT-9. Sandbox GC ID (Beta) - VanderLegion
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 08:10 AM
Post: #8
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-02-2013 12:58 PM)Diebo Wrote:  
(04-02-2013 12:46 PM)rocco Wrote:  While we have an extended beta on our hands and plenty of time for testing, how shall we shake up the racials? I know a lot of ideas have been posted before, let's re-share them and try it out.

Here's my stab, taken mostly from threads I've read in the past:

Small minded -> 2 cost ( was -3 )
Puts it on equal footing as broadfield. Both are different flavors of how you want to research (horizontally or vertically through the tree)

Tolerant -> 1 cost ( was 3 )
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Sanctioned Piracy -> 1 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 1 pt traits?

Battlehardened -> 2 cost (was 3)
No one uses it, too expensive. We need more 2 pt traits?

I think HGA should stay the same. It is a risk, but it is a risk that can pay off well.



I am only looking at adjusting point costs right now. Fundamentally changing how a trait works (looking at you high-low gravity) is out of scope.

Those sound good to me. I would rename "small-minded" to "focused research" or something to reflect that it is a good thing.

I've always seen small minded as a must in my old long-game strategy. it was the best way to make sure all good tech was able to be researched. the -3 points was a great bonus!

I agree it should be renamed to Focused Research. Now with research being a lot more strategic, it makes more sense.

Most MP games I've played so far, the long-game strategy no longer works. It takes way to long to get any higher tech, and most people seem to be raising L1 frig fleets out of the gate.

GC: Elph -=- GC Sandbox: Elph
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2013, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2013 09:52 AM by rocco.)
Post: #9
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
(04-07-2013 08:10 AM)elph Wrote:  Most MP games I've played so far, the long-game strategy no longer works. It takes way to long to get any higher tech, and most people seem to be raising L1 frig fleets out of the gate.

In my game against Diebo (started after these changes came into effect), I opened up with gauss cruisers (shortly followed by proton torps). Eventually I wrapped the weapons tree to get plasmas at the end. I ended up losing, but it wasn't because I could not reach the higher level techs fast enough. I went with unconventional racials and it felt completely viable. My only regret was not having combat pilots, otherwise I'd probably have won Wink



That being said, I do think we need a few more negative traits.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2013, 01:24 AM
Post: #10
RE: Round Table: Racial Trait Cost Balancing
Expert Interstellar Navigators (+2)
Ships can fly closer together when travelling between systems hiding their numbers. [/b]

GC ID: *-=KC Black Hawke=-* GMT+0
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Starbase Orion | Return to Top | Return to Content | Lite (Archive) Mode | RSS Syndication