HPC (Heroscape Point Calculator): Basic point costs

[Xotli]

Okay guys, I'm actually starting this project. Let's see how it goes.

The first thing I need is comments on the basic points assigned for X many life, move, range, etc. Here's the basic matrix out of the long long ago spreadsheet from .net:

Point Costs:

Height Life Move Range Attack Defense
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 5 2 2 3 6
2 0 10 4 4 6 12
3 0 15 6 6 9 18
4 0 20 8 8 12 24
5 0 25 10 10 17 30
6 0 33 14 14 27 38
7 0 40 18 17 38 46
8 0 50 25 21 54 54
9 0 65 30 26 70 62

This is, I understand, the basis for HCC's auto-point-calc as well (altho it may be slightly different). Does everyone agree with these base numbers? Does anyone have a different set they use?

Personally, I have two questions about it. First, it seems a little weird to me that height doesn't add any points ... bigger is better, right? The taller you are, the higher you can climb, and the farther you can fall without damage.

Secondly, defense is worth twice attack (at low levels)?? Isn't the classic argument for Taelord costing so much more than Raelin that better attack is better than better defense? So I don't understand defense costing twice as much as attack at all.

Thoughts anyone?

[Grungebob]

I don't agree with these points. Life should be scaled according to the power. An all 5 unit with 5 life costs 82 while an all 5 unit with just one life costs 62? doesn't jive at all.... Not much about this does. I would not use it.

[Xotli]

Thanx for the tips GB. Okay, I'll look at HCC's code and see if I can extract something more recent from that.

In the meantime, do you have anything like this that you use for your own customs? How do you come up with your point values?

Where's UD, I wonder ... I've seen him do point breakdowns before, I'm sure ...

[shakey_snake]

playtesting.

[Xotli]

playtesting.

I agree that playtesting is the only way to make sure you have the points right in the end, but I'm hoping to come up with something that'll get you in the right ballpark to start with.

[philowar]

I use a different point cost calculator. Think it was from .net. It's in Excel spreadsheet form. It calculates most of the figures from the master set nearly dead-on and is an invaluable tool for determining (contrary to what anyone says) ballpark base point values when creating customs. So far, it has yet to be too far off the mark.

[Xotli]

I use a different point cost calculator. Think it was from .net. It's in Excel spreadsheet form. It calculates most of the figures from the master set nearly dead-on and is an invaluable tool for determining (contrary to what anyone says) ballpark base point values when creating customs. So far, it has yet to be too far off the mark.

Awesome! But I thought those figures above were from the old .net spreadsheet ... I think I was confused.

But if you could email me your spreadsheet it would be a fantastic starting point philowar! I'll pm you my email. (Alternatively, you could put it up as a download so everyone else can get it too.) Thanx!

[reapersaurus]

I haven't seen a point calculator yet that was close within 25%, IMO.
The best way to estimate costs is to compare against other official units.

I think the old .net one didn't appropriately cost for additional figures in the squad - in fact, I think it made a 4-figure squad CHEAPER than a 3-figure squad of the same stats, IIRC.

[philowar]

I haven't seen a point calculator yet that was close within 25%, IMO.


Then you should try the one I'm talking about, which you've probably already seen since you've been around a good while. It calculated Syvarris at 101 points, Raelin at 79.75, Finn and Thorgrim at 79, and a few other guys from the master set that I tried almost dead on. I believe that's at least 25% accurate. Furthermore, the guys it was a bit off on it seems to have priced more accurately priced than the Hasbro devs: Mimring at 142 (let's round him down to 140) and Drake at 117 (up to 120. I've always thought Drake was a little on the cheap side with grapple gun and thorian speed and 6 attack for 110, though as I use him a lot I'm not complaining about the bargain).

I'm not saying that the calculator I use is a be-all end-all, but it certainly is a great tool for roughly determining base costs before adding specials, or determining the approximate costs of specials that closely resemble those that can be found in figures from Wave 1 or the master set. If I knew who the hell came up with it in the first place, I'd thank him wholeheartedly.

-phil

[Xotli]

I haven't seen a point calculator yet that was close within 25%, IMO.

Well, that gives me something to shoot for, then. :)

I just checked HCC and this is exactly what it uses. So let's take a look at philowar's spreadsheet:

Point Costs:

Height Life Move Range Attack Defense
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 5 2 2 2 3
2 0 10 4 4 4 8
3 0 15 6 6 7 14
4 0 20 8 8 10 20
5 0 25 10 10 13 26
6 1 33 14 14 24 34
7 1 40 18 17 35 42
8 2 50 25 21 50 50
9 2 65 30 26 65 58

The differences are subtle. First of all there are some points assigned for large heights, which addresses one of my original concerns. The numbers for attack and defense are different too, but part of the pattern I was objecting to remains: defense points are still double attack points for most low-level dice. However, philowar says this one works well, so I think the next test will be for me to take all the official units I can and run a comparison test.

Hopefully I'll be getting the base data from Logrey, which will save me having to type in a bunch of stuff. Once I get that, I'll post back here with the results.

Of course, comments in the meantime are always welcome. :)

[Grungebob]

Run Krug through that thing.

[Xotli]

Run Krug through that thing.

Well, the spreadsheet is old enough that it doesn't know what Wounded Smash is, but I'd say any way you look at it it thinks Krug is underpriced.

Using the same value for Double Attack that it uses to make Syvarris come out exactly, the spreadsheet says that if Krug didn't have Wounded Smash at all, he'd still be worth 110 pts. (To make Wounded Smash add a mere 10 pts, I'd have to make it equivalent to Disengage or Bonding, and I think it's clear it's worth more than that.)

However, I disagree slightly with the way Double Attack is costed in the sheet. The sheet has two ways to cost powers: a point value that's just added in, or a multiplier. The idea is that certain things, like, say, Slither, are cooler the cooler your unit is. That is, the more you can attack, and/or defend, and/or move, and/or survive, the more use you're going to get out of Slither. OTOH, an ability like Chomp is just there. It's the same amount of useful to a unit with attack 1 as to one with attack 9.

Double Attack is costed as 30 pts, straight up. Which I think is wrong, because to me it seems like Double Attack is obviously more useful the more attack dice you have. Now, if I change Double Attack to be a multiplier but make sure that Syvarris stays at 100 pts, it comes out to 40% (which is equivalent to The Drop, or, say, twice as good as Frenzy). Using 40% instead of 30 pts for Krug give you 120 without counting Wounded Smash at all.

So either way he's underpriced, according to this sheet. The thing is, I can't recall if these results are good or not. :) Is the general concensus that Krug is underpriced?

[Grungebob]

The consensus is that he is a good value but not extremely underpriced. He is very draftable. The thing is, that he is useless until wounded, so you should point cost him at his partially wounded state.

[philowar]

So either way he's underpriced, according to this sheet. The thing is, I can't recall if these results are good or not. :) Is the general concensus that Krug is underpriced?

Though I happily use him every chance I get, I think he is underpriced. Would I spend 140 points on drafting him if that's what he actually cost? Absolutely. Any figure that can -routinely- take out 200+ point guys like Charos and Jotun head to head (which I've seen Krug do more than a few times) is worth more than 120 in my book.

As for him being useless until he's wounded, I disagree with that too. Two attack dice with double attack is not useless, especially when dealing with squads, and I've seen opponents who dismiss an unwounded krug come to regret it.

[Regai]

There are a few problems with all point calculators:

1) Special Abilities for official units do not follow any kind of trend. Some of them appear to be direct costs, and others appear to be percentage gains.

2) Squads have a seemingly random effect on cost.

3) Some official units appear to be undercosted/overcosted for their actual playability.

4) It is just an estimate regardless of what the outcome is.

The point calculator in HCC is fairly accurate for the master set units, but can be wildly off for other official units. The point cost for official units was determined by playtesting. All point calculators should be taken with that knowledge.

[Grungebob]

As for him being useless until he's wounded, I disagree with that too. Two attack dice with double attack is not useless, especially when dealing with squads, and I've seen opponents who dismiss an unwounded krug come to regret it.It was a figure of speech!! Jeez! :roll: Obviously he is not useless, just a bunch weaker than his potential. When he reaches his potential he is also at his most vulnerable. Point costing him using a formula is not going to work, and that is my point. In tournaments he does OK but he is not some uber cheap and useful unit that is seen in every army.

[Xotli]

Though I happily use him every chance I get, I think he is underpriced. Would I spend 140 points on drafting him if that's what he actually cost? Absolutely. Any figure that can -routinely- take out 200+ point guys like Charos and Jotun head to head (which I've seen Krug do more than a few times) is worth more than 120 in my book.

In tournaments he does OK but he is not some uber cheap and useful unit that is seen in every army.

Okay, so philowar says Krug is worth 140. GB, what do you say he's worth? 125? 130? Anyone else have an opinion on that?

Point costing him using a formula is not going to work, and that is my point.

I shall take that as a challenge! :D

I do think that it's possible to come up with a formula. But to me the more interesting question would be, can he be costed with the same sort of formula that would work on other units, or he just so damn special that he needs his very own super-formula? If we had to come up with a special formula just for Krug, not only would it not be worthwhile to actually do so even if we could, but it would throw serious doubt on our whole undertaking here, since if one unit can't be done with a standard formula, others will certainly fall into the same category.

But I think the standard formula we have here can handle it. Wounded Smash, to me, is the perfect example of what "multiplicative" special is all about. It's more useful the more attack you have, the more defense you have, and (most especially) the more life you have. So coming up with some sort of multiplier seems like it would work okay to me. It might not be perfect, of course, but then we all accept (I hope!) that this effort will never be perfect anyway. We're just trying to get into the right ballpark.

There are a few problems with all point calculators:

Regai, I'm glad to hear from you on this topic. And you've provided me with a list of goals, too! :wink: I'll have to make sure HPC doesn't fall into any of these pitfalls.

1) Special Abilities for official units do not follow any kind of trend. Some of them appear to be direct costs, and others appear to be percentage gains.

Yes, there are several cases where this seems to be true. But, as I said, to me it seems clear that, mathematically speaking, some specials increase your existing abilities, and some specials are just "add-ons". I will try to codify this (as mathematically as possible) for HPC.

2) Squads have a seemingly random effect on cost.

Yeah, reaper mentioned that there were issues with the squad calculations. I haven't even delved into that side of it yet. Plus it doesn't take into account whether a squad (or a hero, I suppose, but it's far more important to account for with a squad) is common or unique, does it? That seems a major failing to me.

3) Some official units appear to be undercosted/overcosted for their actual playability.

Well, what's even more disconcerting to me is the idea that some specials may have been costed to force the costs on a MS unit to come out to the same as Hasbro's, as opposed to coming up with a real idea of what the special is worth. I'll admit that when I first had the idea of HPC, I really wanted to make sure it costed all the officials "right" (probably using Hasbro's definition of "right"), but the more I think about it, the more I think that's not only unreasonable, but just plain a bad idea. Now that I'm looking at the results of trying to force the point costs to match an arbitrary standard (even Hasbro's "official" standard), I'm seeing that I don't want to go down that road.

4) It is just an estimate regardless of what the outcome is.

Absolutely, and I want to stress that to everyone here (during the planning stages), and I will also stress it within HPC itself (to the users): the points that this thing will calculate must not be merely taken at face value, but they should give a reasonable starting point for playtesting.

The point calculator in HCC is fairly accurate for the master set units, but can be wildly off for other official units.

And that's because of what I cite above, IMHO: forcing the points to match up without regard for what the specials are really worth.

BTW, the calcs I posted from philowar's spreadsheet are not much different from HCC's, but after playing with them a bit (on my first posted custom) I already like them better. It wouldn't take much to switch HCC over to this method. I could submit a patch, but I don't have any good way to recompile HCC, so I wouldn't want to commit anything to Svn that hadn't been tested.

The point cost for official units was determined by playtesting. All point calculators should be taken with that knowledge.

Amen, brother.

[Regai]

1) Special Abilities for official units do not follow any kind of trend. Some of them appear to be direct costs, and others appear to be percentage gains.

Yes, there are several cases where this seems to be true. But, as I said, to me it seems clear that, mathematically speaking, some specials increase your existing abilities, and some specials are just "add-ons". I will try to codify this (as mathematically as possible) for HPC.

3) Some official units appear to be undercosted/overcosted for their actual playability.

Well, what's even more disconcerting to me is the idea that some specials may have been costed to force the costs on a MS unit to come out to the same as Hasbro's, as opposed to coming up with a real idea of what the special is worth. I'll admit that when I first had the idea of HPC, I really wanted to make sure it costed all the officials "right" (probably using Hasbro's definition of "right"), but the more I think about it, the more I think that's not only unreasonable, but just plain a bad idea. Now that I'm looking at the results of trying to force the point costs to match an arbitrary standard (even Hasbro's "official" standard), I'm seeing that I don't want to go down that road.

This is the two that jump out at me.

Defense Aura
All figures you control within 4 clear sight spaces of Raelin the Kyrie Warrior add 2 to their defensive dice. Aura does not affect Raelin the Kyrie Warrior.

Defense Aura
All friendly figures adjacent to Thorgrim the Viking Champion add 1 die to their defense.


In order to get Raelin correct, her Defensive Aura is priced at a .1 multiplier, but to get Thorgrim right his Defensive Aura is priced at a straight 10 points.

Now Raelin's Aura is clearly better than Thorgrims, but put Raelin's Aura on a hero with all fives using the spreadsheet and you'll find that the multiplier adds a mere 3.5 points.

The multiplier method was a hack on Raelin's Defensive Aura to get Raelin to cost correctly (or close to it using the spreadsheet). In general the multiplier method is a hack to cost units correctly.

[0rbital]

BTW, the calcs I posted from philowar's spreadsheet are not much different from HCC's, but after playing with them a bit (on my first posted custom) I already like them better. It wouldn't take much to switch HCC over to this method. I could submit a patch, but I don't have any good way to recompile HCC, so I wouldn't want to commit anything to Svn that hadn't been tested.


Just submit a feature request to update the calculator and when everyone agrees to the update you can send me the code. I'll compile it and test it for you. Or I can code the changes.

[philowar]

put Raelin's Aura on a hero with all fives using the spreadsheet and you'll find that the multiplier adds a mere 3.5 points.


What do you mean? Put it on a figure that has a 5 rating for each stat? That comes out to way more than 3.5 points.

[philowar]

Point costing him using a formula is not going to work, and that is my point.

I shall take that as a challenge! :D



I think it can be done and I eagerly await the result of your work.

[Regai]

put Raelin's Aura on a hero with all fives using the spreadsheet and you'll find that the multiplier adds a mere 3.5 points.


What do you mean? Put it on a figure that has a 5 rating for each stat? That comes out to way more than 3.5 points.

A figure with 5 for each stat and no specials comes out as a 90 point figure. But if you add a sinlge special with a mulitplier of .1, which is what was assigned to Raelin's Defensive Aura, and you see that it only adds 3.5 points.

[Xotli]

In order to get Raelin correct, her Defensive Aura is priced at a .1 multiplier, but to get Thorgrim right his Defensive Aura is priced at a straight 10 points.

Yeah, that's a problem. Not only is Raelin's ability vastly underpriced, but IMHO it's wrong for it to be a "multiplicative" (I need to come up with better terms for these) ability at all: Defensive Aura doesn't help her be a more effective unit, it helps others. To me, that's a perfect example of an "additive" ability. (Perhaps they could be "enhancements" vs "bonuses"?)

The multiplier method was a hack on Raelin's Defensive Aura to get Raelin to cost correctly (or close to it using the spreadsheet). In general the multiplier method is a hack to cost units correctly.

Now, I wouldn't go that far. I think that "multiplicative" specials ("enhancements"?) are a good way to represent certain abilities. Let's take an oversimplified example. Let's say there was such a special as Double Turn (like Double Attack, but you get to move again as well). It would be pretty clear that that special would make a unit exactly twice as cool as it was without it. A 20 point unit with that special would be worth 40, and a 60 point unit with that special would be worth 120. That's a multiplier of 1 (i.e. 100%).

Or imagine Frenzy 16 was written so you could only do it once per turn. Thus, 25% of the time, you get to be twice as cool as you usually are. That would make a 40 point unit worth 50, or a 100 point unit worth 125. That's a multiplier of .25 (i.e. 25%).

Of course, most situations are not going to be so clear cut ... it's tough to say exactly how much cooler being able to fly makes you, e.g. But in general I think the multiplier method is valid, if used properly.

Just submit a feature request to update the calculator and when everyone agrees to the update you can send me the code. I'll compile it and test it for you. Or I can code the changes.

Okay, Orbital, sounds good. I'll try to do that soon.

I think it can be done and I eagerly await the result of your work.

Yeah, me too. :D I don't think it's gonna be easy, but I definitely believe it's possible. I already have some good ideas cooking, but I really need to get Logrey's data so I can just program in some calcs and start changing things bit by bit and see exactly how many units fall into place and how many go wildly wrong at one swoop. Logrey's going to send me that as soon as he updates HS Manager for the latest expansions, so that'll be exciting. In the meantime, I'll keep tweaking the spreadsheet by hand.

A figure with 5 for each stat and no specials comes out as a 90 point figure. But if you add a sinlge special with a mulitplier of .1, which is what was assigned to Raelin's Defensive Aura, and you see that it only adds 3.5 points.

Actually, it should add 9, right? (.1 * 90 == 9) For a hero, at least.

[Regai]

After reviewing it, a unit with all 5's by the spreadsheet I have costs 84 points. The .1 multiplier does add 8.4 points. (Still far to little for as good ability as the ranged defensive aura)

There was an error on the spreadsheet that wasn't looking up stuff correctly.


That said, I did say in general the multiplier is a hack.

Let me look at the spread sheet again:

These are the skills that I think should be straigth bonus but are not:
-Attack Spirit
-Defense Aura (Raelin)
-Disengage
-Stealth Dodge
-Evasive
-Grapple Gun
-Sword of Reckoning (called Melee 4)
-Range Attack (called Range Enhancement Aura on my spreadsheet)
-Shield Wall

These are the skills that are multiplied and probably should remain:
-Beserker Charge
-Counter Strike
-Flying (not entirely convinced it should be here)
-Frenzy
-Ghost Walk (similar to flying, not entirely convinced it should be here)
-Slither (also similar to flying)
-Water Clone

And these skills should be a function of squad size because it gets better with larger squads.
-The Drop
-Zettian Targeting (called Squad Targeting on the spread sheet)

So, in half of the instances on the spreadsheet the multiplier was a hack, in the other half it was warrented. I revise my previous statement to read: "About half of the multipliers are hacks to get units to cost correctly under the formula".


Flying, Ghost Walk, and Slither affect movement on the board. I'm not sure if the ability should be consider a function of how good the unit is. Flying on a good unit seems like it should cost more than flying on a poor unit. But would adding flying to a poor unit make it a good unit or at least a decent unit?

[Xotli]

I revise my previous statement to read: "About half of the multipliers are hacks to get units to cost correctly under the formula".
Oh! I completely misunderstood you. Sorry.

These are the skills that I think should be straigth bonus but are not:
Well, this is a little off-(thread-)topic, but let's look at those a bit. I agree with you on Attack Spirit, Defense Aura, and Range Enhancement. Those are quite obviously powers that don't affect you but rather someone else. Grapple Gun is technically a move enhancement, but it's such a limited one that it might be better as a bonus. Disengage I'm completely on the fence on--I can see it both ways. But the rest are definitely enhancements (either attack or defense), so I think I agree with the spreadsheet on those.

These are the skills that are multiplied and probably should remain:
I agree with you on all those, except that I'm still on the fence about Water Clone as well. Like Disengage, it definitely adds something to your unit as opposed to another unit, but does its utilty "scale" with your unit's power? or it is equally useful to a weak unit and a powerful unit? Right this second, I'm leaning towards both being bonuses, but what I will probably do eventually is start a separate thread for this topic (bonuses vs enhancements, that is).

And these skills should be a function of squad size because it gets better with larger squads.
-The Drop
-Zettian Targeting (called Squad Targeting on the spread sheet)
Oooh, good call. But, you know, maybe the fix for that is much simpler than we think ... right now the specials multiplier is applied first, then the squad formula. Now, as I said, I haven't looked at the squad part of the formula--I think it's much easier to get heroes right then start on squads--so maybe it doesn't matter, but if it does, perhaps simply reversing the order would fix the problem?

Flying, Ghost Walk, and Slither affect movement on the board. I'm not sure if the ability should be consider a function of how good the unit is. Flying on a good unit seems like it should cost more than flying on a poor unit. But would adding flying to a poor unit make it a good unit or at least a decent unit?
I'm pretty sure those are enhancements rather than bonuses. Let's look at Move: the more Move you have, the more use you get out of Flying (or Slither, or Ghost Walk); that's obvious. But I think a reasonable argument can be made that the higher your Range is, the more you can get out of them too (you can position yourself better for ranged attacks). And being able to fly right up to your enemies isn't that great when your Attack and/or Defense suck. So I vote that (in general) move enhancers be considered enhancements. (Hmmm ... the fact that I'm now using "enhancers" and "enhancements" so close together leads me to believe that I may have been premature in my choice of terminology. If anyone wants to suggest alternatives, I'd welcome it.)

[Regai]

These are the skills that I think should be straigth bonus but are not:
Well, this is a little off-(thread-)topic, but let's look at those a bit. I agree with you on Attack Spirit, Defense Aura, and Range Enhancement. Those are quite obviously powers that don't affect you but rather someone else. Grapple Gun is technically a move enhancement, but it's such a limited one that it might be better as a bonus. Disengage I'm completely on the fence on--I can see it both ways. But the rest are definitely enhancements (either attack or defense), so I think I agree with the spreadsheet on those.

I guess my point is that if you can assign a straight value to attack or defense values, why can you not assign a straight value to things that enhance those abilities? See a defense of 1 is what 3 points? A defense of 9 is 58 points. So why is Evasive 8 a multiplier? We know that the difference in 8 points of defense is 55 points, once you factor in how often the skill would come into play in a normal game the skill itself then becomes worth about 10 to 20 points (IMHO). Of course you could argue that Evasive is good when the unit has a high movement and poor when the unit has low movement. But I could make that same arguement about Fire Line Special Attack which is a direct cost special.

[Xotli]

I guess my point is that if you can assign a straight value to attack or defense values, why can you not assign a straight value to things that enhance those abilities? ...

You make a compelling case. :) Okay, let me ponder that for a bit and see what I come up with.

[philowar]

A figure with 5 for each stat and no specials comes out as a 90 point figure. But if you add a sinlge special with a mulitplier of .1, which is what was assigned to Raelin's Defensive Aura, and you see that it only adds 3.5 points.

You're miscalculating. 90 x .1 = 9. 90 + 9 = 99, round up to 100.

[Regai]

A figure with 5 for each stat and no specials comes out as a 90 point figure. But if you add a sinlge special with a mulitplier of .1, which is what was assigned to Raelin's Defensive Aura, and you see that it only adds 3.5 points.

You're miscalculating. 90 x .1 = 9. 90 + 9 = 99, round up to 100.

See the updated numbers (there was an error in the lookups in the spreadsheet I had). It comes out 84 * .1 = 8.4 84 + 8.4 = 92.4, rounds up to 95. in either case it still puts Raelin's ability on a 5 straight unit at roughly 10 points, which is still to low for the ability.

[philowar]

in either case it still puts Raelin's ability on a 5 straight unit at roughly 10 points, which is still to low for the ability.

Yes, but the argument can be made that Raelin costs too little as it is. The calculator doesn't make a figure who happens to have two more attack and defense but -no- flying any more undercosted than Raelin at 80 points with 3 att/def, 5 life, and flying.

[toddrew]

These are the skills that I think should be straigth bonus but are not:
...
-Defense Aura (Raelin)
...


Sorta been following this thread, so excuse the nose sticking (I don't think this point has been addressed, but I may have missed it): The reason it would be difficult to straight cost aura abilities is that their usefulness is directly related to how hardy the character is - Defense aura would be much more effective granted to a character of 6 life and 6 defense than on a character of Raelin's stats (5, 3). It's late, but I'm sure that would apply to most abilities - the longer they are projected to be available the more they would cost. Which is something the proportional costing addresses (how well it addresses is another story :) )

[Regai]

These are the skills that I think should be straigth bonus but are not:
...
-Defense Aura (Raelin)
...


Sorta been following this thread, so excuse the nose sticking (I don't think this point has been addressed, but I may have missed it): The reason it would be difficult to straight cost aura abilities is that their usefulness is directly related to how hardy the character is - Defense aura would be much more effective granted to a character of 6 life and 6 defense than on a character of Raelin's stats (5, 3). It's late, but I'm sure that would apply to most abilities - the longer they are projected to be available the more they would cost. Which is something the proportional costing addresses (how well it addresses is another story :) )

The same could be said about almost ALL abilities. Especially bonding, and mind shackle.

[toddrew]

The same could be said about almost ALL abilities. Especially bonding, and mind shackle.

Exaclty.

It was late (for this old man, anyway) when I posted the previous post, so that's probably why the following didn't occur to me: no reason why the straight cost and proportional cost need to be exclusive, any ability that is more effective over the time a figure is on the board (most all abilities :) ) should likely have a straight cost component (based on the potency of the power, of course) and a proportional component (with it's factor based on the potency of the power as well.) So the cost formula for Defense Aura would be A + BX, where A is the straight cost portion, B the potency coefficient (or some such blather of a title :) ) and X the aggregate 'straight cost' points (from the 'normal' stats and the base costs for any special abilities.) Something like that.

Is that something you were tinkering with Xtoli?

[Xotli]

Sorta been following this thread, so excuse the nose sticking ...
No, please. I wish more noses would come along; I have an innate fear of a few core members coming up with what we think is good while everyone else ignores us, and then when we put out the finished product everyone will complain that it doesn't work right. :wink:

But then I'm a programmer, so that sort of thing happens to me a lot.

The reason it would be difficult to straight cost aura abilities is that their usefulness is directly related to how hardy the character is ...
What Regai said. :D

I think the key is to figure out where to draw the line. It can be a subjective line--I have no problem with that--but it should be clear to everyone even if it's subject to interpretation.

Of course, an alternative would be to make everything a "factor" (better than "enhancement"?). That might be a valid choice; I dunno yet.

no reason why the straight cost and proportional cost need to be exclusive, any ability that is more effective over the time a figure is on the board (most all abilities Smile ) should likely have a straight cost component (based on the potency of the power, of course) and a proportional component (with it's factor based on the potency of the power as well.) ...

Is that something you were tinkering with Xtoli?

You know, that's actually one of the first things that occurred to me once I started figuring out how bonuses and factors (still dunno if I like that word ...) work. I've been saving it in the back of my mind as something to try if all else fails. :)


Oh, hey, and Regai: I thought of the answer to your earlier question about why can't attack enhancements be bonuses instead of factors (or at least a possible answer). Sure we know what the difference in points is between A2 and A3. We also know what the difference in points is between A8 and A9. However, those differences aren't the same. So how can we use a bonus value for a +1A enhancement?

Just a thought.

[Regai]

Oh, hey, and Regai: I thought of the answer to your earlier question about why can't attack enhancements be bonuses instead of factors (or at least a possible answer). Sure we know what the difference in points is between A2 and A3. We also know what the difference in points is between A8 and A9. However, those differences aren't the same. So how can we use a bonus value for a +1A enhancement?

Just a thought.

There is a scaling to those abilities. Mind you some, like attack, scale quite quickly. Does it make more sense to say that +1A is a 10% increase in point cost, or a flat point cost based on the difference between 8A and 9A? The latter is 16 points, the former is unknown, but could be anywhere form 3 to 30 points depending on the rest of the characters stats (which oddly enough averages to 16.5).

[Xotli]

There is a scaling to those abilities. Mind you some, like attack, scale quite quickly. Does it make more sense to say that +1A is a 10% increase in point cost, or a flat point cost based on the difference between 8A and 9A? The latter is 16 points, the former is unknown, but could be anywhere form 3 to 30 points depending on the rest of the characters stats (which oddly enough averages to 16.5).
You are slowly winning me over to your line of thinking ...

[Regai]

Syvarris; 4L, 5M, 9R, 3A, 2D, H4, 100 Points
Guilty; 2L, 5M, 7R, 2A, 2D, H5, 30 points


I would have posted this in the other thread, but since isn't quite on topic in either thread I think it would better fit here....

Some Math:

Assuming that each point of life, movement, range, attack, and defense is a constant value (and not a progressive value like HCC and the spread sheet use) we can try to assign values to abilities.

First let's look at Syvarris and Guilty:

Syvarris: 4L + 5M + 9R + 3A + 2D + da = 100
Guilty: 2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D + da = 30

da = 100 - 4L - 5M - 9R - 3A - 2D

2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D + 100 - 4L - 5M - 9R -3A - 2D = 30

100 - 2L - 2R - 1A = 30

70 = 2L + 2R + 1A

70 - 2R - 2L = 1A

A = (70 - 2R - 2L)
This means that each point of attack value is equal to 70 minus 2 points of range and 2 points of life.


Now lets look at Tornak and the Swog Rider, they both have Disengage and an enhancement that affects adjacent units of a very specific type in exactly the same way. Let's assume that Orc Warrior and Orc Archer Enhancements are equal value. Also I am assuming that there is no difference in values for Unique vs Common (espically since the Swog Rider is common and costs a quarter of the Unique Tornak).

Tornak: 3L, 7M, 1R, 4A, 5D, Disengage, Orc Warrior Enhancement, 100 points
Swog Rider: 1L, 1M, 8R, 3A, 3D, Disengage, Orc Archer Enhancement, 25 points

3L + 7M + 1R + 4A + 5D + di + oe = 100
1L + 1M + 8R + 3A + 3D + di + oe = 25

di + oe = 100 - 3L - 7M - 1R - 4A - 5D

1L + 1M + 8R + 3A + 3D + 100 - 3L - 7M - 1R - 4A - 5D = 25
100 - 2L - 6M + 7R - 1A - 2D = 25

75 = 2L + 6M - 7R + 1A + 2D

A = 75 - 2L - 6M + 7R + 2D

Since we have an expression of A in terms of Range and Life let's plug that in here:

70 - 2R - 2L = 75 - 2L - 6M + 9R + 2D
0 = 5 - 6M + 11R + 2D
-2D = 5 - 6M + 11R
D = (6M - 11R - 5) / 2


So we can now express Attack and Defense in terms of Movement, Range, and Life. Now if we can find a formula that lets us express one of those three in terms of one or two of the others then we can actually solve the values of each one.

[Xotli]

First let's look at Syvarris and Guilty:
:
:
This means that each point of attack value is equal to 70 minus 2 points of range and 2 points of life.
Okay, cool, except that those equations assume that Double Attack is a bonus, not a factor. If we ran it as a factor, we'd get:

Syvarris: (4L + 5M + 9R + 3A + 2D) * (1 + da) = 100
Guilty: (2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D) * (1 + da) = 30

4L + 5M + 9R + 3A + 2D = 100 / (1 + da)
2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D = 30 / (1 + da)

2L + 2R + 1A + (2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D) = 100 / (1 + da)
2L + 2R + 1A + (30 / (1 + da)) = 100 / (1 + da)
2L + 2R + 1A = 100 / (1 + da) - 30 / (1 + da)
2L + 2R + 1A = 70 / (1 + da)

If da was set to 65% (see other thread), that would make 2L + 2R + 1A about 42.5. (60% makes it about 44, and 70% makes it about 41, so even if our value for da is a bit off, I'd say somewhere between 40 and 45 is the right ballpark.)

Using that, we'd get:

A = (42.5 - 2R - 2L)

which has got to work out better than 70 ... 70 is just too huge. (Well, 42.5 is too big too, but at least it's not as bad. But look here:

70 = 2L + 2R + 1A
2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D + da = 30
(5M + 5R + 1A + 2D) + (2L + 2R + 1A) = 30
(5M + 5R + 1A + 2D) + 70 = 30
5M + 5R + 1A + 2D = -40

and that's obviously borked. My way:

42.5 = 2L + 2R + 1A
(2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D) * (1 + da) = 30
2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D = 30 / (1 + da)
2L + 5M + 7R + 2A + 2D = 18 <- da = 65
(5M + 5R + 1A + 2D) + (2L + 2R + 1A) = 18
(5M + 5R + 1A + 2D) + 42.5 = 18
5M + 5R + 1A + 2D = -24.5

Still borked, but not quite as badly. I think this may be an indication that the progressions have to be increasing, and/or that the "zero point" isn't necessarily at zero--perhaps 5M = 0, for instance, and lower M's are negative (and so forth for the others as well). But let's continue as if we hadn't noticed all that. :))

Now lets look at Tornak and the Swog Rider, ...
Ooh, yeah, good one.

Let's assume that Orc Warrior and Orc Archer Enhancements are equal value.
Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Also I am assuming that there is no difference in values for Unique vs Common (espically since the Swog Rider is common and costs a quarter of the Unique Tornak).
I may not be okay with that, but I see your point and I'm willing to go with it at least temporarily.

Tornak: 3L, 7M, 1R, 4A, 5D, Disengage, Orc Warrior Enhancement, 100 points
Swog Rider: 1L, 1M, 8R, 3A, 3D, Disengage, Orc Archer Enhancement, 25 points
No, wait, your M and R are backwards there. :) Which would change your equations thus:

3L + 7M + 1R + 4A + 5D + di + oe = 100
1L + 8M + 1R + 3A + 3D + di + oe = 25

di + oe = 100 - 3L - 7M - 1R - 4A - 5D

1L + 8M + 1R + 3A + 3D + 100 - 3L - 7M - 1R - 4A - 5D = 25
100 - 2L + 1M - 1A - 2D = 25

75 = 2L - 1M + 1A + 2D

A = 75 - 2L + 1M - 2D

And then, plugging them into what I got using a 65% factor for da:

42.5 - 2R - 2L = 75 - 2L + 1M - 2D
-2R = 32.5 + 1M - 2D
R = D - M/2 - 16.25

which, considering that our da was a bit flexible anyway, is pretty much just:

R = D - M/2 - 16

or:

D = R + M/2 + 16

if you prefer.

That's getting us somewhere ... I think. :)

[hi1hi1hi1hi1]

I was reading this thread and it caught my attention as a custom creator, back in the old days of HQ. I think a working point calculator could be really cool. I think for the Syvarris and Guilty scenario double attack should be a multiplier, but not of the entire total of the stats. Double Attack is only useful with the attack number so it would make more sense to have it multiplied by the attack. This way it would be:

Syvarris: 4L + 5M + 9R + (3A*da) + 2D = 100
Guilty: 2L + 5M + 7R + (2A*da) + 2D = 30

4L + 5M + 9R + 2D - 100 = -(3A*da)
100 - 4L - 5M - 9R - 2D = 3A(da)

2L + 5M + 7R + (2A*da) + 2D = 30
30 - 2L - 5M - 7R - 2D = 2A(da)

Then you can multiply Syvarris's stats by 2 and Guilty's by 3 to set the attack times double attack equal. Then you can substitute and simplify.

(100 - 4L - 5M - 9R - 2D)*2 = (3A(da))*2
200 - 8L - 10M - 18R - 4D = 6A(da)

(30 - 2L - 5M - 7R - 2D)*3 = (2A(da))*3
90 - 6L - 15M - 21R - 6D = 6A(da)

200 - 8L - 10M - 18R - 4D = 90 - 6L - 15M - 21R - 6D
110 = 2L - 5M - 3R - 2D

D = L - 55 - 2.5M - 1.5R

Then using the formula from the revised Tornak and Swog Rider stats you get: (I used 2D to get rid of the decimals)

2D = 2L - 110 - 5M - 3R (Syvarris/Guilty)
2D = 75 + 1M - 2L - 1A (Tornak/Swog Rider)

2L - 110 -5M - 3R = 75 + 1M - 2L - 1A
1A + 4L = 185 + 6M +3R

A = 185 + 6M + 3R - 4L

Using this formula life would be worth alot of points, so I think your quote

Still borked, but not quite as badly. I think this may be an indication that the progressions have to be increasing, and/or that the "zero point" isn't necessarily at zero--perhaps 5M = 0, for instance, and lower M's are negative (and so forth for the others as well). But let's continue as if we hadn't noticed all that. )

is correct. The zero point is not at zero, of course that would make what you are trying to do much harder than it seems.

One thing that just hit me while looking over the Tornak/Swog Rider is that size has to play a factor unlike in the earlier charts. Not only that, but if the character is two spaced or one should make a difference as well. A two spaced figure such a Swog or Tornak can grant an enchantment to 7 figures while a one space could grant it to 6. Its not that big a difference, but it could change the point values slightly.

Just so you know, I just joined this board yesturday, but I was a member of HQ for a long time so my opinion is not from a total newb as the join date would imply.[/quote]

[Regai]

One thing that just hit me while looking over the Tornak/Swog Rider is that size has to play a factor unlike in the earlier charts. Not only that, but if the character is two spaced or one should make a difference as well. A two spaced figure such a Swog or Tornak can grant an enchantment to 7 figures while a one space could grant it to 6. Its not that big a difference, but it could change the point values slightly.

Good point.... hmmm....

[whiteyjason]

Me and some friends just got into HS, and we really really love it. After our first few games, we already agreed on some house rules, and started discusing the possibility of Custom Units. This site has been Extremely helpful, and I wanted my first comment to be on this thread, because out of all of the other things I've seen on the site, this has to be the one that We as players are really looking forward to. Please, keep up the development, we are rooting for you. Point costs are a thing we really want to get right, or as close as possible, and the direction you are all going in now is working really great. HCC is really cool, and we all know that HPC is going to be really cool when its done.

Once again, from all of us playing at my place, thanks, and keep up the good work! :)

[Xotli]

This site has been Extremely helpful, and I wanted my first comment to be on this thread, because out of all of the other things I've seen on the site, this has to be the one that We as players are really looking forward to. Please, keep up the development, we are rooting for you. Point costs are a thing we really want to get right, or as close as possible, and the direction you are all going in now is working really great. HCC is really cool, and we all know that HPC is going to be really cool when its done.

Once again, from all of us playing at my place, thanks, and keep up the good work! :)
Wow. Thanx so much for the support. It's been a while since I've had a chance to work on the program, because that evil Real Life thing has beaten me over the head with a wake-up stick. But I hope to be getting back to it soon.

For any who are following along, here's my current plan:

1) Get a text file that has all the official units in it with all their stats. This part is actually technically complete, 'cause I cheesed off GaryLASQ's excellent site and built my text file (well, it's a pseudo-XML file a la Apache configs) off that. But I wanted to make a few tweaks to the format before I moved on.

2) Create a mini-site where I can host HPC. This isn't done, but it's basically trivial because I have a web server that I have complete control on and I can just use a directory on that.

3) Create a CGI that has the calcs in it and will spit out calculated point costs vs actual point costs for all official units. This way, we can easily see where HPC is wacked and can tweak it and easily see the effects.

4) Ask the community for input based on that.

So I won't give you all the sob stories about all the crap that's going on in my life right now ('cause you don't really care, and shouldn't have to), but I'll just say that I'm still trying to scrape together the time to work on this ... I'm just not very successful ATM. But getting encouragement like this from whiteyjason and EyeOfSauron (over on another HPC thread) is really helpful, if only because it lets me know that others besides me would like to see the results. So thanks again, and keep watching (but please don't hold your breath). :)

[whiteyjason]

No problem at all. I know that seeing people appreciate your work is real encouraging. If I had any real knowledge of the game, any programming or technical knowledge, I'd help as much as I could, but I'm pretty much just getting into it at this point.

Are you going to make the Text file that your making in step 1 available? I'd like to see it with your tweaks, when its done.

Also, as a tiny bit of a question, would you or anyone else reccomend any changes to the costs in HCC, in the meantime till HPC gets out?

[Xotli]

Are you going to make the Text file that your making in step 1 available? I'd like to see it with your tweaks, when its done.
Oh, definitely. I suppose anyone with any Pe rl skills could actually make something of it--since I based it the Config::General module, you can suck it in with just one line of code. I actually had the brilliant idea of being able to use it to generate data for various other projects (e.g. Logrey's HS Manager, ryougabot's spreadsheet, etc), but then I figured maybe I better concentrate on one stalled project at a time. :wink:

Also, as a tiny bit of a question, would you or anyone else reccomend any changes to the costs in HCC, in the meantime till HPC gets out?
Actually I've mostly been using a spreadsheet I got from ... someone ... I can't recall right now (philowar, maybe?). It only differs from the HCC calcs in very minor ways, but it seems to come up with pretty good base figures for all that, at least until you get to some of the more problematic specials. I'll try to get it stuck up in the downloads section at some point this week.

[jcb231]

I think point calcualtors are good for getting a starting point, but as Reaper says they are rarely accurate. Usually you can just estimate the starting point on your own.

[Malechi]

Nothing is as precise as play testing, but for establishing the point cost to start testing from, the calculators at least have some reasoning behind them. No one would do anything around here if it were up to Reaper's detracting, pessimistic, glass half-empty attitude ... Always listen to Reaper's evaluations; never to his condemnations.

[whiteyjason]

As a starting point for playtesting, thats really the reason I'm interested. Also, when coming up with new specials, I try to base them off of current powers, just tweaking them a bit from that. So it gives me a good starting point for costing specials on customs.

Keep up the good work, Xotli!

[General J-Rock]

Hello All,

I am new here and saw this forum and was just wondering if any point calculator was ever created that helps with customs?

[wrestlinggeek]

Hello All,

I am new here and saw this forum and was just wondering if any point calculator was ever created that helps with customs?

I have the exact same question. I realize that the calculator being discussed here can help with any special power that has already been used by an official unit (even though I have yet to see the finished product, so to speak), by I have ideas for several customs with powers unlike anything possessed by an official unit. Any way I could get some help with those?

[Sir Yeshua]

Start a thread over in the customs section. That's the easiest way to get feedback.

[wrestlinggeek]

Start a thread over in the customs section. That's the easiest way to get feedback.

Thank you.