Would “perfect parity” of point costs make the game better?

[Ben]

Do you think that if everything in the game was “perfectly costed”, that the game would be better off?  Or would it simply be options overload every time you went to build a fleet, even more so than it already is?

For example, my Total Recosting was a brief exercise in “fixing” point costs.  If it was truly optimized (ex: via algorithm or perhaps millions of simulated games and outcomes), would the game be better or worse off?  Is it best to have tiers of game piece strength?

[Xerecs]

Might be options overload, or could lead to situations where player skill, knowledge and luck become more driving factors than certain ships simply being better than other ships.

Also, if everything is “costed right” you may need to increase the suggested point limit of standard games from 40 to something else, as a fleet made of costed right ships might get you one or two ships in a fleet (without heavy crew combos) and max out your build total of 40.

[Ben]

Also, if everything is “costed right” you may need to increase the suggested point limit of standard games from 40 to something else, as a fleet made of costed right ships might get you one or two ships in a fleet (without heavy crew combos) and max out your build total of 40.

I think it would balance out because of all the overpriced ships – I think there are probably more of those than the underpriced ships.  For example, a ton of ships from Fire and Steel (and other “second half” of production sets) would suddenly drop into single digits for point cost.  Something like USS Shark would go from 13 points of “bleh” to 5-6 points of intrigue.

Banshee’s Cry might go to 10 or more, but a bunch of ships of the same type (Crete Argentee, Repulsa, etc) would drop into single digits, which would compensate for the OP stuff getting more expensive.

[Author]

Posts