Alternate Beams

[Na-Po]

You only have half a dice of difference each time.
If you've got 1Ad it's 1 chance out of 2
with 2 Ad its 1 + 1/2 so still "only" half a dice missing
and so on (4Ad would be 2+1+1/2 ...)

So we can assume that it theorically tends toward x hits for x dice
and is on average around x-0.5 hits for x dice

Edit : But I think we all agree on the problem being the dispersion of beam and not its average.

 

[Locutus9956]

yep, it was more just an interesting side note than anything else though it does have some relavence as half a dice difference when your talking about 3 or 4 dice is pretty damned signifigant especially as the average hits with the 4=1 5=2 6=3 is ACTUALLY 1 not 'tends to 1'.

Consider a 6 dice beam:

Actual average hits for that currently is 5.5

Under the new rule it would be 6

Now you cant actually roll 5.5 hits of course but the point is that thats even chances of you getting 5 OR 6 hits so the new rule IS an upscaling on average (and also doesnt actually reduce the chances much for a 'fizzle' as far as I can see)

I'm still leaning towards hits on 4+, rerolls on 6s, intial dice get rerolls if they miss.

For that same 6 dice beam you would get in fact, 5.5 hits on average. It does in fact work out exactly the same on average as the current rules but since your mostly rerolling the initial misses rather than continuing to reroll hits it tends to result in a more solid initial hit on average and much less chance of a big hit. In fact I like this rule so much I think I may try it next game I play...

 

[Burger]

Consider a 6 dice beam:

Actual average hits for that currently is 5.5

How do you work that out?

Edit : But I think we all agree on the problem being the dispersion of beam and not its average.

Yes, absolutely. But we need to know what the average is, so that we can maintain this average, to avoid playtesting, rebalancing or changing of any stats.

 

[Triggy]

ah but you see thats the crux of it, it TENDS TOWARDS 1 assuming an infinite pool of attack dice, in practical terms:

I have an 8AD beam.

On average I get 4 initial hits: Total hits 4.
Reroll those 4, getting on average 2 more hits: Total hits 6.
Reroll those 2 again getting on average 1 more hit: Total hits 7.
Reroll that final dice which has a 50% chance of hitting (now if we round up this is 8 hits but its more accurate to say its 7.5 hits since you will get 7 hits as often as youll get 8).

The lower the number of dice you have for your initial pool the more innacurate is to say it tends towards 1 however you look at it. Statistics is all well and good in theory but can only be applied to certain degree in reality where limits slightly lower than infinity apply

In any case though I find myself leaning rather towards the hits on 4s rerolls on 6s and rerolls on all initial AD.

I dont think beams are overpowered as they stand currently, just far too erratic and that DOES need a change I think.

Seriously, the maths can prove that the average for a 1AD beam is 1 hit. It is not 0.5 hits. If you really want an explanation we can go into one but suffice to say you have enough mathematicians on here who agree that this is actually the case. (I don't mind if you want the full explanation but it will take a while for someone who doesn't remember those maths classes.

 

[Burger]

The sum of an infinite series xr+xr^2+xr^3+... is x/(1-r).
In this case, x=1/2 and r=1/2. So the sum is 0.5/(1-0.5) = 1.

 

[Locutus9956]

I am of course, wrong, was not really thinking particularly clearly earlier, tends towards one is of course correct since in the example of a 6 dice beam hit if that last single dice does hit then theres still a 50% chance of it continuing to hit.

I still prefer the 4+, reroll 6s and rerolls on intial misses idea but either would be preferable to the ultrarandom beams we have currently

 

[Burger]

My favourite replacement is your FT idea, with automatic rerolls. 6 scores 2 hits, 4 or 5 score 1, 1-3 are re-rolled. Maintains the average perfectly, and reduces the deviation massively, while still allowing up to 2xAD hits if you are lucky.

 

[greenboy]

Not quite the same thing but how about hits on 4 rerolling misses on the first volley the reroll any dice which beat the armour of the target

 

[Shut Up Hippie!]

I actually like beams how they currently play.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

Alternatively consider my idea all beams auto hit. Simple sticks to the maths sort of.

 

[B5freak]

I'm of two minds on this:

Simply stating that beams auto-hit keeps the math right, reduces the sigma to zero, and most importantly speeds up the game.

Going with Burgers latest suggestion again seems to keep the balance while accomodating those who believe rolling dice = fun. I especially like the 6=2 hits. Shortens play time (no need to keep rolling) while still giving you that "lucky shot" feeling.

 

[CZuschlag]

I even like Burger's idea better than mine.

Dangit.

 

[darklord4]

I even like Burger's idea better than mine.

Dangit.

I like it too, especially since the single-dice-throw mechanic speeds up game play as well.

I am pretty sure it would not go over big with my group as they seem to enjoy the runaway beams playing EA, Psi-corps, ISA, Shadows and Minbari...Seeing these fleets all the time kind of makes me think beams are overpowered...
Oh well, I'll just keep on overloading on the Demos :twisted:

I wonder if somehow a single-dice-throw mechanic could be made for interceptors as well.

 

[Harry Lonsdale]

I'm all for getting rid of the runaway beam hits. Especially since I mostly play Pak'ma'ra now

 

[Rorschach]

I prefer that element of randomness and surprise actually...lends the game to be more like a real battle over an exercise in Odds manipulation.

Fluff wise,
I see the 2 dice become 17 hits rolls being solid lock ons, and the tracing the beam down the target.

The 2 dice = 4 hits is a decent but brief hit, maybe crossing the target at a short angle instead of drawing lengthwise

The no hits is a flat miss.

Burger's suggestion:
6 = 3 Hits
5 = 2 hits
4 = 1 hit
1-3 reroll
That I quite like too though. It leaves it open for that tripling your dice but makes it quite rarer.

Then again, I always love the tension of getting on a roll with the 4+'s ...

 

[darklord4]

Burger's suggestion:
6 = 3 Hits
5 = 2 hits
4 = 1 hit
1-3 reroll

I didn't realize Burger's suggestion had a reroll. The reroll pushes the average hits above 1 per AD.

 

[GhostRecon]

Burger's suggestion:
6 = 3 Hits
5 = 2 hits
4 = 1 hit
1-3 reroll

I didn't realize Burger's suggestion had a reroll. The reroll pushes the average hits above 1 per AD.

From what Burger, I get the impression that Rorschach has misinterpreted him:

My favourite replacement is your FT idea, with automatic rerolls. 6 scores 2 hits, 4 or 5 score 1, 1-3 are re-rolled. Maintains the average perfectly, and reduces the deviation massively, while still allowing up to 2xAD hits if you are lucky.

So the table would be:

6 = 2 hits
5 = 1 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = Re-roll

I would definitely go for a system like this, it makes beams at once more predictable, yet keeps them just unpredictable enough to be dangerous.

 

[darklord4]

So the table would be:

6 = 2 hits
5 = 1 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = Re-roll

This brings the average hits per AD back to about 1. I'd still rather have 4-6 be 1-3 hits and roll only once.

 

[Burger]

So the table would be:

6 = 2 hits
5 = 1 hit
4 = 1 hit
3-1 = Re-roll

This brings the average hits per AD back to about 1. I'd still rather have 4-6 be 1-3 hits and roll only once.

Problem with that is it is still very easy to get no hits. That is one of the problems with current beam rules: it is too easy to get long strings of beam hits, and it is equally easy to get no hits. The reroll solves both issues.

 

[Greg Smith]

Doesn't this bring the average to 1.3333, since there are actually only three possible results - 1,1,2. Or am I misinterpreting the reroll as rolling until you get 4,5 or 6 on the dice?