Rules & Statistics Analysis and Discussion

[Dave Baughman]

This thread is for discussion of the rules and statistics used in the Flashpoint game. Several uses we envision:

• This is a place to ask the GM team why aspects of the game are designed the way they are.
• This is a place to bring up holes in the rules or areas where the rules may not be functioning as intended.
• This is a place to analyze, compare, and discuss the statistical and mathematical underpinnings of the game, and how they effect the strategic, operational, and tactical decision making.

I should note that this isn't a general OOC thread. Please use the Flashpoint OOC or the General Discussion area for off-topic discussions.

[tassa_kay]

Just hand me my dunce cap and point me to my desk.

[Dave Baughman]

OK, here is the short version of what I have in mind for the SRMA board.

1) A place to not just ask about the rules but to try them out in an environment where your faction's survival isn't on the line.

2) A place to try out specific scenarios the GMs cook up and earn build points by completing them.

3) A place for the GMs to post examples of different orders being used as a reference tool.

4) A place where players can post analysis of their own strategies, explaining what they did right, what they did wrong, and where the dice made all the difference. Good articles, which could help new players learn tactics and also increase everyone's understanding of the rules, would be rewarded with build points.

[GreyJaeger]

Allow me to retort, especially concerning the Market Encroachment issue. My issue with that particular project, is that it was completely out of whack with every other project, and your justification for it is even more fracked up. If, by your own words it is "riskier" to engage in projects that are detrimental to your rivals, then why isn't every other detrimental project you can run free? Why no free Destroy Hex Element? Why does Assassinate VIP not have a free Disseminate Information mechanic built into it? FFS, Declaring War on someone costs you two points of Public Support!! Every other mechanic in the game, whether project or rule, does not coincide with the way that particular project was done.

Now, if you would of, oh I don't know, talked to me about my issues with that project, I would have told you that I thought that it was not balanced. It costs nothing up front to run, making it the only project that is free to run. You only risk anything if you fail, which is only 1 time in 3. Plus Market Encroachment has a Disseminate Information mechanic built into it, being the only project other than Disseminate Information itself to have it. So with a 66% chance of success and no upfront cost, is it actually "riskier"? Just because your victim may declare war on you? Just being there is a cause for your neighbor to go to war with you.

[Fatebringer]

You also took off before we could talk to you about it and because of your objections, errata was added to the rules thread. The spirit of the project is still in place with most of what you see are flaws in the system, but the limitations on who can use it on you drastically reduce the kind of effects that hampered you.

[GreyJaeger]

Truth be told, all I would have suggested for was the free "You don't know who hit you" and a base cost of 1-2% cost to run, putting it much more in line with every other project. Or keeping the free, but the cost of running the project higher. But the crazy errata is just way out of whack.

[Fatebringer]

We debated making this a max 10%, but allowing multiple factions to work on the same faction. So if one faction got 6%, and the next faction got 8%, they would only get 4% because of the limit. Just sticking to a straight only one faction can tag you, seemed the better option.

The use of %'s instead of set values is one of the basics in the game that make it so that smaller nations aren't whiped out by 1 event, and that Large naions will actually feel the consequences.

[GreyJaeger]

Just make it cost something to run. That is it. Simple.

The idea behind projects was to achieve a goal, whether it was long-term or short-term. When considering a project, one should go, "Does this help me reach my goals?" Market Encroachment was pretty much "Why not?" rather than "Why?"

[Dave Baughman]

Just make it cost something to run. That is it. Simple.

The idea behind projects was to achieve a goal, whether it was long-term or short-term. When considering a project, one should go, "Does this help me reach my goals?" Market Encroachment was pretty much "Why not?" rather than "Why?"

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with section I put in red. The rules are designed to tempt players to run M.E. in order to start conflicts and undermine long-term relationships. This is the same as the way the Diplomatic Incident event gives free public support to players who antagonize one of their neighbors, and the way Holy Shroud's penalties can be ameliorated by acting beligerently.

You raised a valid point about the 2 point PS knock from going to war, but "going to War" has always been defined as executing a combat operation with the engagement intensity of "Invasion." There's nothing to stop you from throwing raids and incursions over the border, and a few well-placed Objective Raids to destroy economic zones or utilize terrorism to attack public support (not to mention using Incursions to possibly kill some enemy TLUs) would be a fairly effective way to punish someone for screwing around with M.E.

Or, then again, maybe not. Part of the calculus that any player needs to make when weighing whether or not the temptaion of the "free" Market Encroachment order is worth it is the possibility that their victim won't react.

To directly answer the question about the lack of other free espionage activities, its worth pointing out that Destroy Hex Element does have a free counterpart: the Damage Hex Element version of the Objective Raid order. Of course, it involves greater risk to counterbalance the lack of monetary cost: military forces have to be inserted and risked.

Disseminate Information likewise has a free version in the form of the News Thread. The downside, of course, is that the disinformation spreading now falls entirely on the author's shoulders, with no 'hand of God' support from the game system to dictate to others whether or not they find the story credible.

[GreyJaeger]

ME is NOT risky. If it was actually risky, then it would have a greater chance of failure. I understand what you say you were trying to do, but I think you just do not want to admit that ME is flawed. So instead, anyone who does not "get it", is not "being in the spirit of the game."

[Dave Baughman]

ME is NOT risky. If it was actually risky, then it would have a greater chance of failure. I understand what you say you were trying to do, but I think you just do not want to admit that ME is flawed. So instead, anyone who does not "get it", is not "being in the spirit of the game."

I'll be the first to admit that the rule as published in the book was flawed, in the sense that it was missing a critical clause restricting who the targets could be, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether or not a 2/3 chance of failure is enough.

[GreyJaeger]

ME succeeds on 3+ on 1d6. The free DI effect is 1 in 3. So ME only fails one time in three.

Plus, the fact that somehow being able to steal national funds from a foreign nation requires no up-front costs. 

[Dave Baughman]

  seemed like it only wholly succeeded on a 5-6 to me. By 'free DI' do you mean not revealing that it was run by the 'attacking' faction? I think you may misunderstand how the project reports are handled - normally the faction who ran an adverse project on you would never be disclosed, for example if someone ran Industrial Espionage, Sabotage, Assassinate, etc, the post of them doing the deed or the report given to your faction would not say "oh, CWIE stole mech plans from you" or "BTW, the Taurians blew up your Warship yards."

A result of 3-4 is a failure, and in fact its a degree of failure that doesn't happen with most projects.

I'm sorry you don't like the Market Encroachment project, and I respect that you feel strongly enough about it that you chose to leave the campaign, but I also respectfully disagree with your asessment of that particular rule.

[GreyJaeger]

On a roll of 3-4 the project succeeds but your interference is detected.

On a roll of 5-6 the project succeeds and the target will not be aware of who initiated the project.

That seems to be pretty definitive, straight from the manual.

Whether someone attempts an adverse project against you not being revealed, that is fine, if they ran DI. Since there are no projects that allow you, as the victim to attempt to figure out who did the deed, then that is another issue that should be looked at.

[Dave Baughman]

DI is not neccessary to mask projects unless the the rules make it public knowledge - note the clause in red.

(5-6) Conceal Project – hide the game effects of a project that benefits your faction (and would
otherwise be public) for 1d6 turns. Project Cost: 50% of the underlying project cost.

To give you some background, Conceal Project was designed for doing things like preventing hex improvements from showing up on the map or for covering up a successful detox. It was never intended as a "mandatory extra expense" added to all of the espionage projects. It would be rather silly if it were this way, since randomly rolled espionage missions often result in any given faction randomly doing bad things secretly to their neighbors without any input from the faction leader (this was intentional).


having said that, and I hope you'll forgive me for being a little pointed, but I didn't establish this thread to argue with you about whether or not the Flashpoint rules are balanced. I'm going to set up a rules balance/rules loopholes/rules breaks section and move all these posts to it. I don't mind explaining at length why things were done the way they were or examining the possibility of unintentional faults in the rules that need to be fixed, but there are aspects of the rules that were done the way they were deliberately and honestly if you don't like them, the best I can do is offer you an explanation of why they are the way they are and then, if we are still at odds, agree to disagree.