Would you PREFER if everything was costed perfectly?

[Ben]

This is a topic that comes to mind once in a while, especially when someone makes the inevitable thread/post about how one thing is overpriced, another is underpriced, and how we can fix it by recosting things.

Would you actually WANT and prefer Pirates CSG to be a perfectly costed game?  Where everything costs exactly what it’s worth in the game?

Or like it is now?  Where there’s a clear “meta” level of game pieces that actually makes it much easier to build a fleet since 70%+ of the game pieces in someone’s collection are likely not good enough to win games with.  (since most people like to win and your opponents will probably use good stuff as well)

Weirdly enough, I often find myself in the latter camp.  I think a lot of it has to do with how much time has passed – the game has been out of print for twice as long as it was in print.  My general “acceptance” of the game has increased with time, having gone from hating sea creatures to making some customs of them for example.  I guess I’ve accepted that the game won’t be balanced all the time.

I feel like there’s an idealism that if everything was costed appropriately, the game would be better.  That might be the case, but it could make fleet building take even longer with many more tough decisions.  (of which there are already a lot for players with moderate experience and/or decent size collections)

I think this is a fascinating debate to be had.  I’m also not really opposed to the idea of coming up with an entire Pirates CSG “alternate universe” of changed point costs where things are costed better for maximum parity and fairness.  It’s just not a project I think would be particularly worthwhile, and there are many things I’d rather do first.

[Woelf]

First things first, having everything perfectly costed is impossible without starting over from scratch. There are too many variables to give everything an objective value because of the multitude of ways things can be combined and used. For example, you could have two separate things that are worth 3 points each when used alone, but when combined are the equivalent of 7 or 8. Does their official price go with individual value, or does it use the combined worth? Does it matter which way they are more likely to be used? On top of that, there’s the lack of precision in the available price range that is for the most part from 0-25 (ignoring the few outliers higher). There’s a lot of rounding on point values that don’t fit exactly on one number, and slight variations lead to cases where two ships seem equivalent but one costs more because it rounded off the opposite direction. Changing that to a 0-100 scale would give a more accurate spread, but adds more complexity to fleet building that isn’t helpful.

Back to the question…
Ignoring the issues up in my first paragraph, I think that having “perfect” costs for everything would invite more the creation of even more min/max setups, because every point would technically matter. Players might be less likely to include “fun” items because they’d be afraid of losing out on value that could have been spent on things that are objectively “better”.

I like that the game isn’t perfectly costed. The amount of “slop” in the values allows for a lot more flexibility in fleet builds and makes it easier to use things that might be slightly over or under costed without feeling like it’s breaking things in either direction. Having varied costs for equivalent things from one nation to another adds some thematic flavor, even if it’s easy to avoid by mixing fleets. Most of the issue with costs comes from the ones that are obviously over or under valued, like Banshee’s Cry or Maman Brigitte. Adjust those and the others like them to be more inline with the majority, and the game’s costs would feel a lot better in general.

[Ben]

First things first, having everything perfectly costed is impossible without starting over from scratch.

Yeah, I thought about creating an “alternate” Master Spreadsheet that has better point values.  I think there are certain baselines that could be established – mainly keeping captain at 3 and helmsman at 2.  (if possible of course; I suppose one could argue that some crew should be worth 0 points or even negative when compared to the helmsman ability)

Players might be less likely to include “fun” items because they’d be afraid of losing out on value that could have been spent on things that are objectively “better”.

I feel that that is already strongly the case.  I think people could be a bit more casual with building fleets and not need to worry as much if their fleet was going to be trounced by a single piece or two in an enemy fleet (Mermaids, CJS, etc).

Having varied costs for equivalent things from one nation to another adds some thematic flavor, even if it’s easy to avoid by mixing fleets.

That’s one potentially “unpopular opinion” that I can get behind, and I think it’s justified to some extent due to the historical context.  (of course I’m going to say that as an English player lol)

Adjust those and the others like them to be more inline with the majority, and the game’s costs would feel a lot better in general.

That’s what Xerecs got into at the Facebook group (posted the same thing over there).  If you “fix” a few ships, what’s to prevent the new “best” ships or crew from being adjusted as well?  If BC goes to 10+ points, suddenly the Bloody Jewel could be the most OP gold runner.  If there was a recosting, I think it would have to apply to everything, or else a small ban list might be preferable to just nixing some stuff that inevitably presents a “new” class of meta stuff that isn’t currently top-top tier.

Thanks for the detailed response; I think it’s a fascinating discussion around this topic.

[Ed]

I HATE meta gaming and I feel like one of the best ways to avoid it is by nerfs and occasional buffs for example why not try costing musketeers at 2 and helmsman at 3?

[Ruben Santiago]

I like unbalanced game. I’m a person who loves to play against a meta and playing non efficient models in effective ways.

I do this all the time in my miniature games (infinity, frostgrave and guild ball)

[Ben]

I HATE meta gaming and I feel like one of the best ways to avoid it is by nerfs and occasional buffs for example why not try costing musketeers at 2 and helmsman at 3?

That makes sense, I just like the idea of keeping captains and helmsmen at their current costs as a “base” level.  Mainly to simply drive down the cost of other crew – I really like the idea of crew being less expensive in general, since that could result in much more fun crew setups and combos.  (which I’ve found to almost always be a good thing, using lots of crew is fun)  Honestly I think I might someday do a “rapid fire” “total recosting” and create an alternate Master Spreadsheet with changed costs.  It wouldn’t be perfect, but I know the game so well and have memorized a ton of the game pieces to the point where I could probably knock it out in a couple days as a fun exercise, even if it never got used (even by me).

I like unbalanced game. I’m a person who loves to play against a meta and playing non efficient models in effective ways.

I can vibe with that too.  I think the problem with Pirates becomes when things are nearly mandatory to stay competitive.  Captain Jack Sparrow (common version), Banshee’s Cry, and (if you don’t ban events) Mermaids/Favor of the Gods/arguably Becalmed are nearly impossible to go without if you intend to win all the time.  The absolute top-tier metagame is so OP that using great ships like HMS Gallows or the Providence will basically prevent you from winning, which is kinda sad.

[Xerecs]

I chimed in on the FB poll, and I’ll reiterate most of what I said there. I think the game is fine as-is, and re-costing or ‘fixing’ the agreed OP pieces would lead to a can of worms. I can envision a scenario where someone thinks a piece is OP (just because of bad experiences) and calls for it to be nerfed to high heaven, when it doesn’t need to be.

I think if the game was still in production then I might have a different opinion, but with the game so far out of production, calling for ‘fixes’ to pieces seems silly and possibly a waste of time. If people feel strongly about it, then they should communicate with their playgroup well before hand if the game is to be taken in a more casual manner or if it will be hyper competitive.

[Ben]

I think if the game was still in production then I might have a different opinion, but with the game so far out of production, calling for ‘fixes’ to pieces seems silly and possibly a waste of time. If people feel strongly about it, then they should communicate with their playgroup well before hand if the game is to be taken in a more casual manner or if it will be hyper competitive.

Agreed!  I am very in favor of discussing what “level” of game will be played before going in.  Of course, that also requires that the players know the level of meta fleets that are out there for comparison.  I think at least once on VASSAL I was trounced in a game because my opponent showed up with a fleet far better than I was expecting.

Even though I’m fine with the costs as-is, I keep thinking about doing a “flash recosting” very quickly.  I shouldn’t bother with that in the next few months…  lol.

[Ed]

I see where your coming from xerecs but there are lots of obvious balances to be made I cant remember names but there is alot of ships that have the exact same stats but one has a lower cost or a much more useful ability and the same cost.(the former is much more jarring to me than the latter)

[Author]

Posts