Player Count 3

I think I'm finally able to articulate what bothers me about the Frames per Player breakdown -- beyond the fact that I simply prefer smooth progressions -- and it was brought in to focus by this blog post about being the "Accidental Defender".  Let's look at the original table one more time just to make sure we're all on the same page.

Original

                                Frames

Players  Stations Skirmish Battle

    2           3         4 to 6 5 to 8

    3           2         3 to 5 4 to 7

    4           2         3 to 4 4 to 6

    5           1         3 to 4 3 to 5

Okay, one of the core "conceits" of Mobile Frame Zero is that there's a Defender, Attacker, and Primary Attacker.  One of the easiest ways to accomplish this is to allow people to pick a different quantity of Frames when they come to the table.  And if you allow three different levels of choice -- for example 4, 5, or 6 -- this allows space for that to happen.  

Setting aside some players' tendencies to come in "heavy" or the issue of numbers of Systems, having three levels of choice allows people more room for decisions -- and possibly might make it easier.  So if you look at the choices for 4 or 5 players at Skirmish you'll see that room doesn't exist.  And I believe that's what my issue really is with that table.

With that revelation in hand, let's make another attempt at fixing that problem.

In my earlier attempts I had a Revision 1 but I'm discarding that entirely.

Revision 2.2

                Frames

Players Stations Skirmish Battle

      2       3  5 to 7 6 to 8

      3       2  4 to 6 5 to 7

      4       2  3 to 5 4 to 6

      5       1  N/A   3 to 5

The last time I did this I added a new level of conflict and didn't really explain my reasoning behind doing so.  As with my earlier discussion of needing "room to breath", I think adding another column to the chart allows that to happen without adding too much complexity.

New 1.1

        Frames

Players Stations Clash Skirmish Battle

      2       3 4 to 6  5 to 7 6 to 8

      3       2 3 to 5  4 to 6 5 to 7

      4       2 N/A     3 to 5 4 to 6

      5       1 N/A          N/A   3 to 5

Now I know people really like the chaos of six player games but this is where the framework starts to break down -- it's always been that way -- and really it's just simpler to play two three player games.  But, since people like it so much I'll attempt to add it on.

      6       1  N/A          N/A         3 to 4

N/A = Not Applicable.

Hopefully this makes sense to everyone and you enjoy my tilting at this particular windmill.