MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Conflict (Closed)Military
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
The Ellipse Stat System
This is major, and will be taken into effect immediately. All old creations will unfortunately need to be updated—at some point—to fit the new system to determine military strength.

-----

I’ve created a large list of the types of attributes you can give your creation. Everything falls under one of three Main Categories—Land Units, Air Units, or Sea Units. From there they fall into subcategories such as infantry, tanks, bombers, submarines, etc.

For each creation, you’ll need to add (By just copy and pasting the category) numerical stats on you MOC page using this system. (YES, I realize there is a LOT of old creations—but if you just go through and add the stats, this system will become VERY helpful if you go to war)

If anyone thinks some more qualities should be added under a category for a unit, it should be done now, since it would be nigh impossible to do once the system is in place.

(Note: the info in the parentheses in the stats is just for clarification and should not be included when you write up your creation’s stats)

Ok here we go!
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:27 pm
FILLING OUT YOUR STATS:
-----

First (Development): Choose which Main Category and subcategory your creation belongs to.

-----
Second (Production): Choose how you will “produce” your creations.

Dirt Cheap: 35 points to spend and you can produce vast amounts (Units with an * cannot be built for Dirt Cheap)
Cheap: 50 points to spend and you can produce large amounts
Medium: 75 points to spend and you can produce a sizable amount
Expensive: 100 points to spend and you can produce a small amount
Very Expensive: 125 points to spend and you can only produce a few (Units with a $ always cost Very Expensive)
-----

Three (Assembly): Divide the number of points you have (35, 50, 75, 100, or 125) in the attributes of the subcategory to determine the qualities of your creation. This is major when determining which creation is better equipped when battling another.

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:28 pm
LAND UNITS:
-----
Infantry
--Infantry stats can be different for seperate platoons/armies/and such--

Body Amour Strength:
Weaponry skills (Can your infantry win a gun fight with a knife?):
Accuracy:
Conditioning:
Guerilla Training:
Reconnaissance Training:
Demolition Training:
Loyalty (Are your troops willing to die, or are they forced into combat?):
Survival Training (Are your troops going to know what to do if their cut off?):
Special Skills Training (Paratroopers, Scuba, etc.):
-----
Tanks *
Attack Strength:
Speed:
Amour:
Range:
Accuracy:
Rate of Fire:
Maneuverability:
Ammunition Hold:
Stealth:
Speed in water (Optional):
-----
Mobile Gun Systems *
Range of Fire:
Rate of Fire:
Amour:
Speed:
Accuracy:
Infantry Cargo Hold (For land transports, the point level you give it, indicates # of troops it holds):
-----
Anti-Aircraft Vehicles*:
Speed:
Amour:
Range (How high can it shoot up):
Rate of Fire:
Tracking (How well can it determine where to shoot in the air):
Ammunition Hold (Missiles):
-----
Artillery (Heavy) *
Attack Strength:
Range:
Accuracy:
Ammunition:
Rate of Fire:
Mobilization (How fast can you get the heck out of there!?):
-----
Artillery (Light) *
Speed:
Range:
Amour:
Accuracy:
Rate of Fire:
Stealth:
Mobilization:
-----
Armored Land Transports/ACPs/Halftracks *
Speed (Land):
Amour:
Attack Range:
Infantry Cargo Hold (For land transports, the point level you give it, indicates # of troops it holds):
Cargo Hold Supplies:
Maneuverability:
Speed (Water):
-----
Land Transports
Speed:
Amour:
Cargo Hold-Infantry(Points given = # it holds):
Cargo Hold-Supplies (Points given = # it holds):
Maneuverability:
Water Speed (Amphibious only):
-----
Support Land Units (Trucks, Medical, Supply Vehicles, etc.)
Speed:
Amour:
Cargo Hold:
Speed in water (Optional):
Range of Support (How far out can it go to support?):
Medical Response (How fast can your field doctor operate?):
-----
Military Structures (Bunkers, trenches, towers, sentries, etc.)
Range of fire:
Stealth:
Building Strength (Amour):
Support (How much ammunition/supplies are stored there):
Accommodations (How well can you support platoons or an army there?):
Sight Range (How fast can you spot an enemy approaching?):
Establishment—Tunnels and Trenches only (How dug in are you?):

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:30 pm
AIR UNITS:
-----

Fighters, Fighter-Bomber Hybrids *
Speed:
Maneuverability:
Rate of Fire:
Range (Weapons):
Flight Range:
Stealth:
Altitude Resistance (How high up can it go?):
Bomb hold (Hybrids): (Points given= # it holds)
-----
Bombers/ Plane Transports *
Speed:
Flight Range:
Cargo Hold (Ammunition and/or supply hold):
Amour:
Maneuverability:
Stealth:
Altitude:
-----
Helicopters *
Speed:
Maneuverability:
Flight Range:
Rate of Fire:
Range (Weapons):
Stealth:
Cargo Hold (Infantry): (Points given here= # it holds)
Cargo Hold (Supplies/Vehicles): (Points given here= # it holds)
-----
Missiles/Long Range Missiles (SAMS, ICBMs, etc.) *
Missile Range:
Speed of Missile:
Attack Strength (Dependant on Speed):
Damage Radius:
Response Time (How long does it take to get the missile ready to fire?):
Rate of Fire:
-----
Satellites * $
Durability:
Defense:
Maneuverability:
Altitude:
Attack Capabilities:
Spy Capabilities:
-----
Un-manned vehicles/Drones*
Speed:
Amour:
Flight Range (Flying Drones only):
Attack Range:
Accuracy:
Upkeep (Can your robot live off a few batteries or does it break down all the time?):
Speed water (Land ones only--Optional):
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:32 pm
SEA UNITS:
-----

Submarines *
Speed:
Range of fire:
Stealth:
Travel Range:
Ammunition Hold:
Maneuverability:
Depth Limits:
-----
Transports (Sea)
Speed:
(For Cargo on Sea Transports, choose two of the three)
Cargo Hold (Supplies): yes/no
Cargo Hold (Infantry): yes/no
Cargo Hold (Vehicles): yes/no
Amour:
Weapon Defense strength:
Stealth:
-----
Aircraft Carriers * $
Speed:
Fuel Hold (Fuel for ship and planes—dependant on Aircraft hold=Points given in planes):
Aircraft Hold (Point cost given= 3X in planes):
Launch Rate (How fast can you get the planes in the air?):
Amour:
Defense weapon strength:
Maneuverability:
-----
Amphibious Transports/Vehicles*
Speed (Water):
Speed (Land):
Amour:
Stealth:
Infantry Cargo holds:
Cargo hold—Aircraft, vehicles (Points given indicates # it holds):
Attack Range:
Rate of Fire:
-----
Battleships, Frigates, Cruisers, Yachts, etc.*
Speed:
Amour:
Range of weapons:
Accuracy:
Fire Rate:
Ammunition Hold:
Maneuverability:

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:33 pm
Quoting P4perweight .
I have over 20 creations, and I have a conition called "Lazitis", preventing me from doing it.


Well I hope you don't have to go to war because there will be know way to judge how you would do.
-----

Yes I realize it is a pain to edit them to fit the system--and some people have well over 30 creations--but it is the only way to create a universal system (Which unfortunately was not here from the start) so we can judge strengths and weaknesses equally.
---
On a side note, I’m sorry if it looks a bit too complicated above in the stats, I can’t use html code to bold things so it’s a little crowded.

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:40 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. No

Well I hope you don't have to go to war because there will be know way to judge how you would do.
-----

Yes I realize it is a pain to edit them to fit the system--and some people have well over 30 creations--but it is the only way to create a universal system (Which unfortunately was not here from the start) so we can judge strengths and weaknesses equally.
---
On a side note, I’m sorry if it looks a bit too complicated above in the stats, I can’t use html code to bold things so it’s a little crowded.

I'm up for it.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:48 pm
Quoting Dr. No

Well I hope you don't have to go to war because there will be know way to judge how you would do.
-----

Yes I realize it is a pain to edit them to fit the system--and some people have well over 30 creations--but it is the only way to create a universal system (Which unfortunately was not here from the start) so we can judge strengths and weaknesses equally.
---
On a side note, I’m sorry if it looks a bit too complicated above in the stats, I can’t use html code to bold things so it’s a little crowded.

I have some questions, When you say troop transports number of infantry, How would I
know what number to use. I could put 10 for a number, and would it mean 10 troops?
Also with artillery Big,and small, Would bigger artillery be judged the same as little artillery?
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 4:59 pm
Quoting P4perweight .
I have over 20 creations, and I have a conition called "Lazitis", preventing me from doing it.

Maybe you could make a group and invite Matt, or john to help you?
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:01 pm
Quoting Nemesis º
I have some questions, When you say troop transports number of infantry, How would I
know what number to use. I could put 10 for a number, and would it mean 10 troops?
Also with artillery Big,and small, Would bigger artillery be judged the same as little artillery?


For Transports (Land) we'll do number=actuall number of troops. Sea Transports hold more, so the higher the number, the more it holds in general.

Artillery (When it said heavy and light) was an afterthough that turned out bad. There's now seperate stats for light and heavy.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:13 pm
 Group moderator 
What about mobile gun systems and stuff like that, do they just act as cheap tanks?
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:16 pm
Quoting Dr. No
Artillery (When it said heavy and light) was an afterthough that turned out bad. There's now seperate stats for light and heavy.

you should also make one for amphibius assault craft, since they can hold aircraft, and land vehicles.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:16 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
What about mobile gun systems and stuff like that, do they just act as cheap tanks?


Those would probably be in the Un-manned vehicles or military structures.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:21 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. No

Those would probably be in the Un-manned vehicles or military structures.

A mobile gun system is basically a APC with a tank gun on top, but it carries no soldiers.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:22 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
A mobile gun system is basically a APC with a tank gun on top, but it carries no soldiers.


I guess it could go with tanks then. If it's really a problem--no, I'll just make a new stats for it. It will be added in a few minutes.
-----
Nemesis, amphibious craft have been added in the Sea Units section.

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:26 pm
Quoting Dr. No

I guess it could go with tanks then. If it's really a problem--no, I'll just make a new stats for it. It will be added in a few minutes.
-----
Nemesis, amphibious craft have been added in the Sea Units section.
You need an LAV catagory to.

Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:42 pm
Quoting Nemesis º
Quoting Dr. No

I guess it could go with tanks then. If it's really a problem--no, I'll just make a new stats for it. It will be added in a few minutes.
-----
Nemesis, amphibious craft have been added in the Sea Units section.
You need an LAV catagory to.

LAV? What's that. I'm sorry I sort of militaryily impaired.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:48 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nemesis º
Nemesis, amphibious craft have been added in the Sea Units section.
You need an LAV catagory to.

what about amphibious apcs?
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:48 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. No
LAV? What's that. I'm sorry I sort of militaryily impaired.

Light Armored Vehicle, also known as armored cars.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 5:52 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
Light Armored Vehicle, also known as armored cars.


Would'nt that fit in the armored transports/halftracks section?

--what about amphibious apcs?--that would fit in with Amphibious transports. (If there are some things you don't need/want to spend your points on, you can just put a 0 there)
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 6:17 pm
 Group admin 
Do the stats go in the description of the creation?
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 8:10 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting John Stahlman
Do the stats go in the description of the creation?

Yes.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 8:16 pm
Aight man, this looks good! It will be a pain to go back and do this with 15-20 mocs, but the system seems like a great idea.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 9:55 pm
Although, as i said in the other thread, builders should get a little something extra for realism/functionality/build quality. Like after you post the stats about whatever it is, each of the combat mods should award 1-10 points in a comment on the creation. That will also help determine which vehicles are superior.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 10:03 pm
 Group admin 
Just putting this out there. this system is great, but it might not work in some cases lets say two high end tanks, the M1 Abrams and the Russian T-90 have pretty much the same production cost and are both modern tanks. The M1 Abrams is a better tank by far in terms of Armor and weapons. It also has a faster top speed and more powerful engine. The Russian T-90 Is lighter and more manuverable, but that about it. Everyone can see that the best tank is the M1 Abrams, But with your system the M1 and the T-90 are evenly matched, they have the same "point value" while the Abrams can have better armor, the T-90 will have better weapon systems even though the Abrams is better in both categories.

I think a better way to do this is for every player to list how good they want their unit to be as in a lightly armored tank, a heavy tank or things like that. then to select a few people 3-5 to go around and look at the stats listed and type of vehicle for every player and assign point values after three things, 1 what its unit cost is, 2 what are its stregnths and weaknesses (eg: armor, weapons, speed etc...) and 3 what its made to be used for. then the mods give a point value to the player on the unit which the player can then modify a little bit, say there is a high speed lightly armored transport vehicle that has 47 points in speed and 35 in armor, the player can then add and subtract from the totals a little, in this case making the speed 53 and the armor 30.

Also, this brings me to another issue, a bigger country with a large economy can afford more high end heavy tanks than an island country with less money running through it.

just needed to rant about this and give my opinion.
Permalink
| November 16, 2011, 10:42 pm
I think this new system is a very valuable and welcome adition to the group. Thank you very much for putting time and such in it! This weekend I'll try to add the rest of my creations pics and also try to add statts and such :P



Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 12:56 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Brickviller -
I think this new system is a very valuable and welcome adition to the group. Thank you very much for putting time and such in it! This weekend I'll try to add the rest of my creations pics and also try to add statts and such :P



It's taking a while, but I've got about half of my creations done.
Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 1:09 am
Quoting Dr. No

Would'nt that fit in the armored transports/halftracks section?

--what about amphibious apcs?--that would fit in with Amphibious transports. (If there are some things you don't need/want to spend your points on, you can just put a 0 there)

Then your APC could have more firepower than an amphibius assault craft. Maybe you should have an extra amphibius option for transports/halftracks
Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 6:18 am
Quoting David Cook


My Reply:

1)Yes in some cases it's obvious that there will be some very close situations with point distribution, but if they were to go to war--like the two tanks--then the strategies provided by the countries would help determine which one is better.

2)Yes this seems good…but this probably only needs to be done if the country is going to war, and then only voted on by the mods. I’m not really understanding the add/subtract part. Why wouldn’t the country just have made the stats the desired way from the start?

3)Yes I realize my tiny poor (Well not so much now, we discovered gold) island country and a few others will not be able to afford to produce as much as countries with funds. That is realistic—countries with money can just do more. But to make it more fair, the more you pay in point costs (Like Expensive, Very Expensive) the less you can produce—contrary to producing cheap where you can build vast amounts.
=====
Nemesis, I’ll add more amphibious options. Does anyone else think there needs to be more sections? We need to add them now, so there’s no arguments about stats later! Anyone think previously created categories need changing/or addition of qualities?

Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 7:41 am
Quoting Dr. No
Nemesis, I’ll add more amphibious options. Does anyone else think there needs to be more sections? We need to add them now, so there’s no arguments about stats later! Anyone think previously created categories need changing/or addition of qualities?

Maybe a seprate catagory for helis.
Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 7:51 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nemesis º
Maybe a seprate catagory for helis.

Agreed.
Permalink
| November 17, 2011, 10:17 am
I'm currently updating my stuff and some things seem to be missing: Self propelled anti-air units, and ground drones?
Permalink
| November 19, 2011, 1:36 pm
 Group moderator 
Why does helicopters have nothing related to weapons?
Permalink
| November 19, 2011, 1:42 pm
 Group moderator 
A realistic amount of fighters that a super carrier can carry makes everything else super weak.
Permalink
| November 19, 2011, 2:04 pm
Brickviller,
Added Anti Air vehicles in land section. Drones and land drones are found in the air section.

Quoting Matthew McCall
A realistic amount of fighters that a super carrier can carry makes everything else super weak.


Helecopters have increased stats.

Carriers now hold 3X the point given in hold. (So 10 = 30 planes). Anyways carriers always cost very expensive so you'll have lots of points for distrabution.
Permalink
| November 19, 2011, 2:10 pm
Quoting Dr. No

Would'nt that fit in the armored transports/halftracks section?

--what about amphibious apcs?--that would fit in with Amphibious transports. (If there are some things you don't need/want to spend your points on, you can just put a 0 there)

I still feel that both tanks, transports, and possibly unmanned vehicles should have an anphibius option. How is an amphibius tank supposed to fit into amphibius transports catagory?
maybe have an extra catagory in each of those, maybe speed in water. An an amphibius APC could not fit into the catagory without it being super complex, we dont want our APC to be as strong as an landing carrier. it would be easyer to have an amphibius option on those vehicles. If not then how would an amphibius jeep fit into that? would half in inch of steel fit with four feet of steel armor on a ship.
Permalink
| November 20, 2011, 6:19 pm
Quoting Nemesis º
I still feel that both tanks, transports, and possibly unmanned vehicles should have an anphibius option. How is an amphibius tank supposed to fit into amphibius transports catagory?
maybe have an extra catagory in each of those, maybe speed in water. An an amphibius APC could not fit into the catagory without it being super complex, we dont want our APC to be as strong as an landing carrier. it would be easyer to have an amphibius option on those vehicles. If not then how would an amphibius jeep fit into that? would half in inch of steel fit with four feet of steel armor on a ship.


If you have ideas for possible stats--like in the case of amphibious things--you can make an attribute list for them and I'll add it—I really don’t know what you want them to have. In addition, I don’t really understanding the problem--are there really that many variations of a single type of vehicle that warrants an entirely new attribute section?
Permalink
| November 20, 2011, 7:21 pm
Quoting Dr. No

If you have ideas for possible stats--like in the case of amphibious things--you can make an attribute list for them and I'll add it—I really don’t know what you want them to have. In addition, I don’t really understanding the problem--are there really that many variations of a single type of vehicle that warrants an entirely new attribute section?
You wont have to add any new types of vehicles, just put speed in water as an option under those three vehicles.
I just dont want things like amphiubius APC having the same power, and armor as a landing craft.
It would be more realistic
Permalink
| November 20, 2011, 8:11 pm
Quoting Dr. No

Are you going to add it to land transports? If not people wont be able to use Amphibius IFVs, jeeps, and APCs.
As I said an APC couldnt fit into Amphibius transports due to the vast difference in size, armor, and weaponery.
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 1:14 pm
What about FAVs and LMVs?
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 1:39 pm
In what category does the APC go?
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 1:48 pm
Quoting Elpa 14
What about FAVs and LMVs?


Please do not abbreviate--I don't know what you're talking about.

ACPs have their own category now.

Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 4:15 pm
Quoting Dr. No

Please do not abbreviate--I don't know what you're talking about.

ACPs have their own category now.

What would an amphibius jeep fall into. I still feel you should put a speed in water option in land transports/halftracks, since APCs, IFVs, and LAVs (armored personell carriers, Infantry fighting vehicles, Light Armored Vehicles, should fall into that. BTW my APC can travel on both land and water? I think that APCs should still fall under land transports/halftracks. I need there to be a catagory that these vehicles fit into, a lot of people have them. They need to have speed in water, land, cargo hold #, attack range, and armor.
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 4:21 pm
 Group moderator 
I agree with nemesis.
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 4:34 pm
Ok, ALL of those (ACPs, LAVs, IFVs) now fall under land transports/ACPs/Halftracks section. This is getting ridiculous.
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 4:35 pm
Quoting Dr. No
Ok, ALL of those (ACPs, LAVs, IFVs) now fall under land transports/ACPs/Halftracks section. This is getting ridiculous.

One last thing for now. could a very expensive fighter jet be made in decent numbers, an example would be 200 jets?
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 5:35 pm
If the nation had enough funds and was willing to pay that much. However, "very expensive" covers various costs--you could make 200 fighters, but you would not be able to produce 30 aircraft carriers—in addition to cost you need to think about production limitations.
Permalink
| November 21, 2011, 6:37 pm
Quoting Dr. No

Please do not abbreviate--I don't know what you're talking about.

ACPs have their own category now.
Fast Attack Vehicle and Light Main Vehicle, about the same thing, just some small differenses.

Permalink
| November 22, 2011, 8:12 am
bringing this up.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 2:04 pm
I was thinking of adding something that would show concrete numbers on what it means to produce things. What I mean is recently due to the war, I have noticed how certain things, such as tanks and infantry, while being produced very expensive, are still massed produced. Does anyone thing there should be some general limits on how many things can be made for certain price points? Like you could make 100,000 cheap infantry, but only 10,000 very expensive infantry--should there be actuall number limits (Give or take a few)?
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:03 pm
Quoting Dr. No
I was thinking of adding something that would show concrete numbers on what it means to produce things. What I mean is recently due to the war, I have noticed how certain things, such as tanks and infantry, while being produced very expensive, are still massed produced. Does anyone thing there should be some general limits on how many things can be made for certain price points? Like you could make 100,000 cheap infantry, but only 10,000 very expensive infantry--should there be actuall number limits (Give or take a few)?

yes that would solve a lot of problems.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:07 pm
Quoting Dr. No
I was thinking of adding something that would show concrete numbers on what it means to produce things. What I mean is recently due to the war, I have noticed how certain things, such as tanks and infantry, while being produced very expensive, are still massed produced. Does anyone thing there should be some general limits on how many things can be made for certain price points? Like you could make 100,000 cheap infantry, but only 10,000 very expensive infantry--should there be actuall number limits (Give or take a few)?

OFC! Ofcourse! This is needed!
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:29 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Nemesis º
yes that would solve a lot of problems.

There are several problems though. Different countries have different budgets, resources, and industrial capacity. Also Very Exspensive is relative. A very exspensive, say, APC, in genreral, won't cost nearly as much a an Medium fighter.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:33 pm
 Group moderator 
Also, say a country wasn't interested in building a navy. With the money they are saving, they could be building thousands of tanks and airplanes instead.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:37 pm
Quoting Matthew McCall
There are several problems though. Different countries have different budgets, resources, and industrial capacity. Also Very Exspensive is relative. A very exspensive, say, APC, in genreral, won't cost nearly as much a an Medium fighter.

Yes we know. the pricing wont be the same for all types of vehicles, he plans on making diferent numberes for each vehicle. For example you can make 10,000 very expensive infantry, but only 400 very expensive fighter jets.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:37 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Matthew McCall
There are several problems though. Different countries have different budgets, resources, and industrial capacity. Also Very Exspensive is relative. A very exspensive, say, APC, in genreral, won't cost nearly as much a an Medium fighter.

thats why im avoiding adding stats to my MOC's until we fix this system, or i go to war.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:38 pm
That's the problem I'm having thinking of how to implement it. I'll draw up some plans in the next few days and see if my idea will work. There would need to be separate production limits for land, sea, and air things. I think this would also be a way to bring in the resource aspect which until now did not seem important—for example countries with access to steal or oil could now produce more than those who don't despite the same payment style (Example: Medium Cost makes 10—Medium Cost with Steal Resources makes 15).
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:38 pm
Quoting David Cook
thats why im avoiding adding stats to my MOC's until we fix this system, or i go to war.


That's what you should do--and hense why I'm hesitant to change the stats now that they've been in place for weeks.

Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:40 pm
Quoting Dr. No

That's what you should do--and hense why I'm hesitant to change the stats now that they've been in place for weeks.

It shouldnt be a problem, Players wont really need to change there stats on the creations, just there stats on how many theve produced, in the statistics convo. It wont require much editing.
Permalink
| December 4, 2011, 3:51 pm
 Group admin 
I have one idea to help fix this system, its tied into my C.U.P.S so you have to understand it before you get this suggestion.

lets say for the sake of arguement, every unit got 100 points across the board.

EX:
A-TERV
Speed: 28
Amour: 17
Attack Range: 11
Infantry Cargo Hold: 14
Cargo Hold Supplies: 12
Maneuverability: 18
(i dont know if these are the real stats im supposed to use, i just copied them from conglomerate humvee; http://mocpages.com/moc.php/295425)

Lets say you decided to produce this vehicle for Economy Cheap, the stats would then look something like this:

Speed: 23
Amour: 12
Attack Range: 6
Infantry Cargo Hold: 9
Cargo Hold Supplies: 7
Maneuverability: 13

it would do this because producing economy cheap vehicles lowers the stats by 5, alternatively, you could produce this vehicle as a very expensive vehicle which increases the stats by 3.

Speed: 31
Amour: 20
Attack Range: 14
Infantry Cargo Hold: 17
Cargo Hold Supplies: 15
Maneuverability: 21


This is something that i proposed to fix the ellipse stat system, not comptetely, because the way that points are distributed right now is like saying that an abrams is a match for a WWII sherman. Granted they were made 50 years apart, but they each cost about the same to make when they were being made, but they are NOT equal tanks.


Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 4:05 pm
I'm going to say it now, the process of production that subtracts or add to stats is not something that should be used. It makes too much of a difference. Subtracting 3 (Like in the example) completely weakens the tank, just by slightly changing production types--As does adding points which makes them massively overpowered.

I don’t think production should affect the attributes of Ellipse stats at all—as the stats are just the qualities of a unit, while production is really just meant to show how long it takes to make that unit. The CUPS system itself was really just made to stop people from saying they created a million man army in a day.

Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 5:54 pm
Quoting David Cook
I have one idea to help fix this system, its tied into my C.U.P.S so you have to understand it before you get this suggestion.

lets say for the sake of arguement, every unit got 100 points across the board.

EX:
A-TERV
Speed: 28
Amour: 17
Attack Range: 11
Infantry Cargo Hold: 14
Cargo Hold Supplies: 12
Maneuverability: 18
(i dont know if these are the real stats im supposed to use, i just copied them from conglomerate humvee; http://mocpages.com/moc.php/295425)

Lets say you decided to produce this vehicle for Economy Cheap, the stats would then look something like this:

Speed: 23
Amour: 12
Attack Range: 6
Infantry Cargo Hold: 9
Cargo Hold Supplies: 7
Maneuverability: 13

it would do this because producing economy cheap vehicles lowers the stats by 5, alternatively, you could produce this vehicle as a very expensive vehicle which increases the stats by 3.

Speed: 31
Amour: 20
Attack Range: 14
Infantry Cargo Hold: 17
Cargo Hold Supplies: 15
Maneuverability: 21


This is something that i proposed to fix the ellipse stat system, not comptetely, because the way that points are distributed right now is like saying that an abrams is a match for a WWII sherman. Granted they were made 50 years apart, but they each cost about the same to make when they were being made, but they are NOT equal tanks.


To me that isnt how it really works (just with the part with the two tanks). If you wanted to use shermans you would ad them as cheap, since thats how much they would cost now adays. The older they are the cheaper they would be to make now. A abrams would cost much more than a replica sherman tank. + The expensive issue could be seen as less of cost but more of the strength themselves. I agree that the system could be a problem.
Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 5:55 pm
 Group moderator 
I agree with Docter No.
Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 5:57 pm
To me, and some other people making things more complex adds to realism, However not everyone can do complex. For example Steven hawkings might like his books to have complex math. Just becuase its an extremly advanced book doesnt mean an average shmuck like us wants to read it.
Keep it a bit simple so newbs understand it.
Adding new ways to play is fun but if there to complex its no fun at all.

Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 6:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No
I'm going to say it now, the process of production that subtracts or add to stats is not something that should be used. It makes too much of a difference. Subtracting 3 (Like in the example) completely weakens the tank, just by slightly changing production types--As does adding points which makes them massively overpowered.

I don’t think production should affect the attributes of Ellipse stats at all—as the stats are just the qualities of a unit, while production is really just meant to show how long it takes to make that unit. The CUPS system itself was really just made to stop people from saying they created a million man army in a day.

Its your system, so i wont tell you what to do, it was just a suggestion. in my opinion it would work better, but its your system and your decision.

we still need to fix it though. look at the comment a made about the abrams and the tiger a few weeks ago for an example of what i mean.

and because you dont want to adopt this system, I'll change CUPS so its not integrated with this system.
Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 6:04 pm
Quoting David Cook
and because you dont want to adopt this system, I'll change CUPS so its not integrated with this system.


I think keeping the systems separate is a good idea. If they were integrated, people could get confused because the Ellipse stats they created are being changed by another system (CUPS).

On a related note, would you like me to add some recourse bonuses to CUPS V2 that I had created but did not add for the original cups?

Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 6:24 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Dr. No
Quoting David Cook
and because you dont want to adopt this system, I'll change CUPS so its not integrated with this system.


I think keeping the systems separate is a good idea. If they were integrated, people could get confused because the Ellipse stats they created are being changed by another system (CUPS).

On a related note, would you like me to add some recourse bonuses to CUPS V2 that I had created but did not add for the original cups?

i already added the bonuses but if yours are better than mine i will do those instead. post them in my cups and ill see which one will work best (if not a combination).
Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 6:33 pm
Will do--I especially like them becasue I gave each bonus a unique name.
Permalink
| December 10, 2011, 6:36 pm
Bringing this up.
Permalink
| December 17, 2011, 7:43 am
Thanks for bringing this up, on a side note, does anyone think I should add a new (Or edit an old stat) for stealth ships? They seem to be the rage now, but there currently is actually no ship in the Ellipse stats that has a stealth attribute.
Permalink
| December 17, 2011, 8:13 am
Quoting Dr. No
Thanks for bringing this up, on a side note, does anyone think I should add a new (Or edit an old stat) for stealth ships? They seem to be the rage now, but there currently is actually no ship in the Ellipse stats that has a stealth attribute.

yes I guess.
Permalink
| December 17, 2011, 9:37 am
 Group moderator 
Quoting Dr. No
Thanks for bringing this up, on a side note, does anyone think I should add a new (Or edit an old stat) for stealth ships? They seem to be the rage now, but there currently is actually no ship in the Ellipse stats that has a stealth attribute.

Stealth should be added.
Permalink
| December 17, 2011, 1:56 pm
Group moderators have locked this conversation.
Other topics
« The Ellipse Stat System
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop Conflict (Closed)Military


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use