Alternate Beams
- Thread starter Locutus9956
- Start date
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
I believe I said in the next paragraph that this wasn't what I meant, after all this is a wargame.
However I believe that beams should at least have a chance of doing this. Is that an unreasonable request?
However I believe that beams should at least have a chance of doing this. Is that an unreasonable request?
Locutus9956
Mongoose
So what about Vree then? Or Dilgar? They dont have access to a single Beam weapon. And the attidude that a broken/overpowered rule can be evened out by simply giving it to everyone is a rather silly solution frankly.
And thats not the problem anyway, I dont think beams ARE overpowered, theyre just not FUN. Like any mechanic that relies too heavily just on the numbers rolled on a few dice it takes away from the tactics of the game.
And thats not the problem anyway, I dont think beams ARE overpowered, theyre just not FUN. Like any mechanic that relies too heavily just on the numbers rolled on a few dice it takes away from the tactics of the game.
Locutus9956 said:
Ah yes, and if I was talking about the silly solution you suggest, your comment would be relevant. However, what I was pointing to was a comment regarding being on the receiving end of beams. To wit "...and if it's the other side that rolls all the big beam hits then it does feel broken." (NightmaresaboutMinbari). I've been on the receiving end of the beams NaM is suggesting and I have delivered such blows. I've swung and missed with beams and I've had others swing and miss with me. It all balances out.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
/sigh
And so you resort to insulting my suggestion and calling it silly because I have the audacity to disagree with you, well done.
In any case I refuse to be drawn into a flame over this, and will continue to discuss this normally:
As I have said about a trillion times now is quite clear, I'm not even remotely suggesting that it doesnt all balance out in the long run, what I'm suggesting is that if I field a Tethys laserboat, get a luck string or folls and blow up a Sharlin for example with one volley then thats basically a game decider, the EA player hasnt won due to tactics or cunning fleet selection hes won because he he rolle a string of high numbers on a a bunch of dice and nothing more.
This seems to be something of a dificult concept for alot of people at times to accept but: A RULE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNFAIR TO BE A BAD RULE! In fact quite honestly I think any rule that makes a game more luck dependant and less tactical somewhat defeats the point of wargaming!
If you like beams the way they are, then fine, good for you, defend them to the hilt, explain your reasons all you like but as soon as you decry someone elese opinion as silly or stupid or resort to insulting them you dont have a leg to stand on as far as Im concerned. Its like turning round and saying, 'no your wrong because, erm, your a big stupid doo doo head!'
And so you resort to insulting my suggestion and calling it silly because I have the audacity to disagree with you, well done.
In any case I refuse to be drawn into a flame over this, and will continue to discuss this normally:
As I have said about a trillion times now is quite clear, I'm not even remotely suggesting that it doesnt all balance out in the long run, what I'm suggesting is that if I field a Tethys laserboat, get a luck string or folls and blow up a Sharlin for example with one volley then thats basically a game decider, the EA player hasnt won due to tactics or cunning fleet selection hes won because he he rolle a string of high numbers on a a bunch of dice and nothing more.
This seems to be something of a dificult concept for alot of people at times to accept but: A RULE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNFAIR TO BE A BAD RULE! In fact quite honestly I think any rule that makes a game more luck dependant and less tactical somewhat defeats the point of wargaming!
If you like beams the way they are, then fine, good for you, defend them to the hilt, explain your reasons all you like but as soon as you decry someone elese opinion as silly or stupid or resort to insulting them you dont have a leg to stand on as far as Im concerned. Its like turning round and saying, 'no your wrong because, erm, your a big stupid doo doo head!'
/sigh too.
Its the same arguement for the stealth mechanism. Nobody would say stealth is currently broken - it is quite fair, you'll break it as often as you don't break it in the long run, there are tactics and options to help you out - but it isn't fun because at the end of the day, it is just one dice roll that determines whether you can fire or not.
Its the same arguement for the stealth mechanism. Nobody would say stealth is currently broken - it is quite fair, you'll break it as often as you don't break it in the long run, there are tactics and options to help you out - but it isn't fun because at the end of the day, it is just one dice roll that determines whether you can fire or not.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
As an adtion: Its not to say luck has no place in wargaming, after all weve still got rolls to hit, perform special orders etc, the problem is where too much effect is derived from one lucky effect, its as Burger says the same problem with stealth and I also personally think the same problem with the crit system. The crit system IS I think improved in 2nd ed, as is stealth and I really do like the 'hull value doesnt matter' aspect of beams but it still has spoiled far too many games for me to think the rule doesnt deserver some attention!
I've played numerous space combat games and as much as I like ACTA no other game I have played can turn so hugely on roll of a few dice (yes I'm even including Battlefleet Gothinc in that
)
I've played numerous space combat games and as much as I like ACTA no other game I have played can turn so hugely on roll of a few dice (yes I'm even including Battlefleet Gothinc in that
)Morpheus1975
Mongoose
Locutus9956 said:
Luck is and should always be inportant in a game. The best example is the battletech headshot where no matter how big the enemy is a hit location roll of 12 by any heavier weapon will basically put the target out of action. I've also killed large target with a single small LRM volley that got a 2 roll, which is a possible torso crit and then rolled 3 engine crits effectively killing a unit more than two and a half times my size with what it would normally brush off like a minor annoyance.
Having said that maybe beams should have a limit of 4 hits per die max so you do not have an infinite number of rolls as long as you don't roll under a 4. If you limit the number of hits you reduce the super-killing by beams. At the same time have a slicer trait that makes beams that have higher limits such as 6 or 8 hits per die. This leave ancients with their firepower but limits younger races.
Also allow any beam die that misses the first time to have a re-roll at a -1 to see if it hit. This means if you have a beam weapon that does 6 dice and only 3 hit on the first roll you can reroll the three that missed and if they roll a 5 or 6 they will hit and all subsequest hits from those dice will also need a 5 or 6.
Reasoning being that you help close the all or nothing gap. Beams that might do nothing have a good chance for a change and at the same time are no longer out of control and can have one die rerolling 8 times and doing massive amount of damage.
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
Back again for another go round.
I'm in agreement with many that the current nature of beams is very random and can reduce a game to a dice throwing contest.
However I don't like the current suggestion on this thread as I feel it gets away from the nature of beams in the series too much, and if given a choice between that and the e2 rules, my vote would be for the e2 rules.
I'm hoping somebody can come up with a third option that still allows beams to cut ships in half occasionally, as they obviously could, but make it less of a random dice roll.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to work up an alternative since I've been following this thread. Wish I had the perfect answer, but sorry guys, I don't.
One suggestion, is there any way that beams could get better if you keep them firing on the same ship for more than one turn? In this way you have to tactically manoeuvre to get the ship splitting beams to do their thing? Only idea I have is that you get to add AD for the number of hits on a previous turn to the current turns fire, or something like that.
However this is just an idea and hasn't been examined in any kind of detail.
I'm in agreement with many that the current nature of beams is very random and can reduce a game to a dice throwing contest.
However I don't like the current suggestion on this thread as I feel it gets away from the nature of beams in the series too much, and if given a choice between that and the e2 rules, my vote would be for the e2 rules.
I'm hoping somebody can come up with a third option that still allows beams to cut ships in half occasionally, as they obviously could, but make it less of a random dice roll.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to work up an alternative since I've been following this thread. Wish I had the perfect answer, but sorry guys, I don't.
One suggestion, is there any way that beams could get better if you keep them firing on the same ship for more than one turn? In this way you have to tactically manoeuvre to get the ship splitting beams to do their thing? Only idea I have is that you get to add AD for the number of hits on a previous turn to the current turns fire, or something like that.
However this is just an idea and hasn't been examined in any kind of detail.
Morpheus1975
Mongoose
Another idea is that once you reach a given number of hits you needs to roll a 6 on each consecutive die roll. This keeps your super lucky ship destroying idea but reduces the chances of it greatly.
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
Anybody know why e1 beam extra volleys at higher difficulty was changed to e2 extra volleys still at 4+?
Perhaps a fusion of these two, all beams starting at 4+, then 5+ on the second roll and 6+ afterwards might work. Combined with allowing CAF/scout redirects to affect beams so they can get a reroll. Comments anyone?
Perhaps a fusion of these two, all beams starting at 4+, then 5+ on the second roll and 6+ afterwards might work. Combined with allowing CAF/scout redirects to affect beams so they can get a reroll. Comments anyone?
How about going back to the old beam rules, but instead of rolling against hull, the first target number is 3? Oh and no rerolls or CAF or redirect fire. So you'd roll against 3, then 4, then 5, then 6, then 6... etc. Ridiculously long beam streams would be much less likely than currently because after the first few rounds you're rolling on 6's. The maths works out to be not quite equal to currently (beams would get 13% more powerful):
Average hits = 2/3 + 2/3*1/2 + 2/3*1/2*1/3 + 2/3*1/2*1/3*1/6 + ... = 1.1333
Would that be a fair trade, for losing the massive hit streaks that are currently so common?
Average hits = 2/3 + 2/3*1/2 + 2/3*1/2*1/3 + 2/3*1/2*1/3*1/6 + ... = 1.1333
Would that be a fair trade, for losing the massive hit streaks that are currently so common?
CZuschlag
Mongoose
By Bill James Pythagorean Formula, let's see how much a 13% firepower output would affect a game where advantages can stack up in a game with random influences:
....................................._________
..................................../(1.13)^2
Winning Percentage: / -------------
................................V (1.13)^2 +1^2
== .7488 instead of a theoretical 0.500
Change in victory rate (first approximation) for a beam-only armed ship (like, say, the Tethys): .2488.
Experimentally, this doesn't seem to be exactly the square root; it's more like the 1.89th root, but this is close enough.
Too much. This is how fragile larger outcomes are when you change precursor conditions, and why game balance can be so hard. And why it's so tempting for a designer to hide inaccurate game balance in a cloud of dice rolling contests.
So yes --- that much of a change is too much.
....................................._________
..................................../(1.13)^2
Winning Percentage: / -------------
................................V (1.13)^2 +1^2
== .7488 instead of a theoretical 0.500
Change in victory rate (first approximation) for a beam-only armed ship (like, say, the Tethys): .2488.
Experimentally, this doesn't seem to be exactly the square root; it's more like the 1.89th root, but this is close enough.
Too much. This is how fragile larger outcomes are when you change precursor conditions, and why game balance can be so hard. And why it's so tempting for a designer to hide inaccurate game balance in a cloud of dice rolling contests.
So yes --- that much of a change is too much.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Eh, I do statistics for a living (Software Performance tester.). As a full geek, I admit to my total lack of social skills.
Perhaps it is a philosophical debate, but I believe that any entertaining game -- and especially an entertaining strategy game -- should have as one of its precepts that the most statistically important part of determining victory or loss is the skill of the player. For me, it's commandment number 3, right behind "The game must be fun." and "The game must have a reachable end."
Perhaps it is a philosophical debate, but I believe that any entertaining game -- and especially an entertaining strategy game -- should have as one of its precepts that the most statistically important part of determining victory or loss is the skill of the player. For me, it's commandment number 3, right behind "The game must be fun." and "The game must have a reachable end."
GhostRecon
Mongoose
A thought for the random crowd, modifying Burger's table:
6 - Roll D3 hits (1-2 = 1 hit, 3-4 = 2 hits, 5-6 = 3 hits)
5 - 1 hit
4 - 1 hit
3-1 - Re-roll once
Makes rolling 6's more random, from decent at 1, to fantastic at 3. A few sixes in one beam stream, and suddenly things are going to hurt.
6 - Roll D3 hits (1-2 = 1 hit, 3-4 = 2 hits, 5-6 = 3 hits)
5 - 1 hit
4 - 1 hit
3-1 - Re-roll once
Makes rolling 6's more random, from decent at 1, to fantastic at 3. A few sixes in one beam stream, and suddenly things are going to hurt.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
Well...
If you want to do this mathematically, why don't you do a statistical analysis of the damage output of ships that do not use beams as primary weapons. Once you've worked out the average damage output of these non-beam primary weapons you'll know what to shoot for (so to speak) in comparable beam primary weapons.
Beams do not exist in a vacuum... uh... well, actually they do... hmm...
...The Beam mechanic does not exist in a vacuum. It has to be examined in the wider context of the game if you want to avoid changing the balance of the game.
ShopKeepJon
If you want to do this mathematically, why don't you do a statistical analysis of the damage output of ships that do not use beams as primary weapons. Once you've worked out the average damage output of these non-beam primary weapons you'll know what to shoot for (so to speak) in comparable beam primary weapons.
Beams do not exist in a vacuum... uh... well, actually they do... hmm...
...The Beam mechanic does not exist in a vacuum. It has to be examined in the wider context of the game if you want to avoid changing the balance of the game.
ShopKeepJon
CZuschlag
Mongoose
ShopKeepJon,
What two do you propose comparing? Just weapons in a contextless sense? Pulse, Heavy Pulse, Bolter, Graviton Bolt, Ion Cannon, Fusion Cannon, Heavy Plasma...other?
Or do you want to talk about ships? I don't think this gets us anywhere; then it becomes all about ship balance, and not weapons balance
What two do you propose comparing? Just weapons in a contextless sense? Pulse, Heavy Pulse, Bolter, Graviton Bolt, Ion Cannon, Fusion Cannon, Heavy Plasma...other?
Or do you want to talk about ships? I don't think this gets us anywhere; then it becomes all about ship balance, and not weapons balance
