Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Would anyone good at the mathhammer be willing to help me balance the points costs for weapons in the game im working on?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Would anyone good at the mathhammer be willing to help me balance the points costs for weapons in the game im working on?

I've good skill with math.
But balance is more than just math.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Would anyone good at the mathhammer be willing to help me balance the points costs for weapons in the game im working on?

I've good skill with math.
But balance is more than just math.

It’s a big part of it.

If average dmg output is significantly higher for faster shooting weapons, something is clearly broken.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Would anyone good at the mathhammer be willing to help me balance the points costs for weapons in the game im working on?

It should be pretty simple, but a lot depends on the target profiles as well (if they have any effect) and range also can't really be accounted for.

 Dolnikan wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Would anyone good at the mathhammer be willing to help me balance the points costs for weapons in the game im working on?

It should be pretty simple, but a lot depends on the target profiles as well (if they have any effect) and range also can't really be accounted for.

pretty easy if you’re good at statistics

Range, deployment, relative player skill, terrain or the lack thereof. All affects balance.

Also, time available for a game. If I’ve a home game arranged and we’re convening of an afternoon? That’s a more time relaxed environment than in-store or a tournament. And that factor can inform army design.

Hordes for instance. On paper they can be powerful. But once a stricter time limit is part of the game to be played? They can be impractical and frustrating, as it takes ages to resolve that player’s turn.

I’d also illustrate that no amount of play testing and number crunching can compare with the game being played in the wild. Every system can be broken, and once folk are playing it, oddities and “Ah, I didn’t think of that” situations will crop up. It’s inevitable.

We can look at games broadly considered well balanced, such as 1st Edition X-Wing to see that, even there, we had a decent amount of Wonk. A-Wings and TIE Advanced for example kinda sucked, and both got updates further down the line.

That’s not to say “therefore why bother”. To aim for balance is only a positive thing. But just accept perfection cannot be achieved, and something, perhaps many things, will turn out super powerful or super weak. And that will require a commitment to get those reined in or pepped up as needed.