Alternate Beams
- Thread starter Locutus9956
- Start date
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ah, that explains it. It wasn't clear to me. 
CZuschlag
Mongoose
I can't tell you how much I like this mechanic. It also allows for several other properties about the beam grade --- some beams might be better than others by granting 0, 2, or even 3, rerolls. You'd have a mechanic for the equivalent of beam AP-ness again. This mechanic opens up so many opportunities.
And, as I think about the future....
Gravitons maybe don't get rerolls (they'd get some dice back as compensation), Vorlon and Shadow beams get 2 rerolls (they don't miss) .... there is a lot of opportunity for differentiating beams that didn't exist after they all got the same SAP-ness that 2nd Edition provided.
The more I think about this, the more I absolutely love this.
Forgetting all this future expansion idea fluff, I'm making a motion that Burger's new beam resolution mechanic be submitted for immediate consideration into the yearly update book. Can anyone else second this motion?
Edit per Burger's post below: Well, Burger and Locutus' then. My apologies, Locutus.
And, as I think about the future....
Gravitons maybe don't get rerolls (they'd get some dice back as compensation), Vorlon and Shadow beams get 2 rerolls (they don't miss) .... there is a lot of opportunity for differentiating beams that didn't exist after they all got the same SAP-ness that 2nd Edition provided.
The more I think about this, the more I absolutely love this.
Forgetting all this future expansion idea fluff, I'm making a motion that Burger's new beam resolution mechanic be submitted for immediate consideration into the yearly update book. Can anyone else second this motion?
Edit per Burger's post below: Well, Burger and Locutus' then. My apologies, Locutus.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Well to be even fairer its not really my idea its Ground Zero Games's I just modified it a bit to suit ACTA (then burger modified it a bit more and in the end we've got what I think is a pretty damn good houserule to make beams work better 
)
(and to be honest I dont really care who gets the credit for it, as long as the end result is a beam rule thats more fun to play with
)
)(and to be honest I dont really care who gets the credit for it, as long as the end result is a beam rule thats more fun to play with
)Locutus9956
Mongoose
So just to make it clear, the proposed rule is now:
Beam: This weapon rolls a number of dice equal to its AD. On a roll of 4 or 5 it scores 1 hit on a roll of 6 it scores 2 hits. Any dice that miss may be rerolled.
Yes?
Beam: This weapon rolls a number of dice equal to its AD. On a roll of 4 or 5 it scores 1 hit on a roll of 6 it scores 2 hits. Any dice that miss may be rerolled.
Yes?
I like this rule very much and give it my full support 8) .
I play EA and I rather see more solid beams than occasional huge beams. The thing is with these rules I would atleast know a bit what to expect from my hyperions and omegas and allows more planning and tactics.
Now I could even maybe score atleast 1 hit with my aft beams for once in my life :wink:
I have to test this beam rule next time we play if my buddies agree on it.
I play EA and I rather see more solid beams than occasional huge beams. The thing is with these rules I would atleast know a bit what to expect from my hyperions and omegas and allows more planning and tactics.
Now I could even maybe score atleast 1 hit with my aft beams for once in my life :wink:
I have to test this beam rule next time we play if my buddies agree on it.
The 6-6 crit is not the problem (as any weapon can cause it to happen). What the rule was developed to do was thin down the extreme range of outcomes available to a re-rolling beam dice.
Currently it is quite possible to score a massive number of hits off a few dice and no hits off a pile of dice. It's kind of like Schroedingers cat really, only with dice instead of cats and no vials of poison.
Currently it is quite possible to score a massive number of hits off a few dice and no hits off a pile of dice. It's kind of like Schroedingers cat really, only with dice instead of cats and no vials of poison.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
The problem is that it makes SOME ships much more random than others and that is never a good thing. It also means that the tactic of fielding lots and lots of cheap ships with tiny beams hoping for that one big crazy roll is valid which kind of sucks the fun out of the game.
I will freely admit that the crit system could also use toning down as the OTHER big problem ACTA still has (how many games can you think of where the game was NOT won by the side that rolled more, nastier crits.. be honest now folks)
I will freely admit that the crit system could also use toning down as the OTHER big problem ACTA still has (how many games can you think of where the game was NOT won by the side that rolled more, nastier crits.. be honest now folks
)
No. 1 Bear
Mongoose
Well locotus has been on the recieving end of my rather ridiculus beam rolling and its good at the time but when you look back its all hit and miss.
It makes ships like the tethys laser boat or the olympus gunship horrible if you get the beam rolling right and remember the tethys is only half a patrol point.
I use beams allot and feel that a system like this would allow for much more planning and remove the "lets see whether i can hit you more than 25 times with 2 dice" As i seem to remember one Adira having suffered more hits than initial AD dice rolled.
It makes ships like the tethys laser boat or the olympus gunship horrible if you get the beam rolling right and remember the tethys is only half a patrol point.
I use beams allot and feel that a system like this would allow for much more planning and remove the "lets see whether i can hit you more than 25 times with 2 dice" As i seem to remember one Adira having suffered more hits than initial AD dice rolled.
ShopKeepJon
Mongoose
As I see it there are several issues involved in this discussion.
Most of the suggestions so far have started with the idea that the average number of hits should be maintained. I don't agree with this. Big beam hits are effective far beyond what the average number of hits would indicate. Anyone who has played against White Stars will understand this.
If you are planning to lower the maximum number of hits achievable by beams, you should raise the average number of hits to compensate. If you don't do this, the overall effectiveness of beam ships will drop substantially.
ShopKeepJon
- 1. Beams are seen as primary weapons (for good reason).
2. People want their primary weapons to reliably do damage to the enemy.
3. Beams have the potential to cause a ridiculous number of hits, so they usually have fewer AD than other primary weapons (for balance reasons).
4. Fewer AD mean that beams hit less reliably.
5. The AD available for beam weapons is based upon their potential, not their average number of hits.
6. Ships with very low beam AD would be nearly useless if beams consistently rolled their average number of hits.
Most of the suggestions so far have started with the idea that the average number of hits should be maintained. I don't agree with this. Big beam hits are effective far beyond what the average number of hits would indicate. Anyone who has played against White Stars will understand this.
If you are planning to lower the maximum number of hits achievable by beams, you should raise the average number of hits to compensate. If you don't do this, the overall effectiveness of beam ships will drop substantially.
ShopKeepJon
ShopKeepJon said:
On. The. Nose.
That's why, while I can intellectually appreciate the proposals, they don't "feel right" ... I think fleets were balanced with that high damage potential in mind, and thus this idea would lead us into yet another round of revising massive amounts of ships or fleet lists.
I wouldnt say you have to raise average numbers because a constant DPT (damage per turn) is much MUCH better than a random spike dmg.
And since I have no way to know when my beam is gonna do lots of dmg I have really no good way to make use of it. It might hit and destroy a ship that was untouched or maybe I had to boresight a ship that was almost destroyed this turn and get 20+ hits on it.
And since I have no way to know when my beam is gonna do lots of dmg I have really no good way to make use of it. It might hit and destroy a ship that was untouched or maybe I had to boresight a ship that was almost destroyed this turn and get 20+ hits on it.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Playbalance can be done mathematically one of two ways; both are valid viewpoints: average, and median. You can also look at some more complicated metrics, but they're typically designed to account for human observational inadequacies, such as Beyesian Averages (look to BoardGameGeek for a great explanation as to what a Beyesian Average is). Let's look at both of these with the change in proposals, and see why the change above is actually an improvement on beams.
Average: The average of a set of outcomes i elements of N is defined as: (sorry if the ASCII art doesn't come out right:
....N
.(Sum) value/N
....i
I think that we agree that the change in the mechanic involved does not update the average --- it started at 1, and it's staying at one.
Median: The median of a set of outcomes, i element of the universe of results, N is done by ordering the values of the i events in an ascending order, and selecting the N/2th element, or averaging (N-1)/2 and (N+1)/2 if the cardinality of N is even. Here, the proofs get a little harder.
The median for the new method we can do by exhaustion. There are 36 outcomes: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 1-4, 1-5, 2-4, 2-5, 3-4, 3-5, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6. The values are:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
The average of 1 and 1 is 1 --- so the median of the new method is 1.
The median for the old method is more difficult, but there are an infinite set of possibilities. However, it can still be calculated. Consider all possible sets of infinite sequences of die rolls. We need to find the middle pair of the sequence.
First of all, we must establish that number of these sequences is even. This is easy; we can claim that the number of sequences is divisible evenly by 2 by example. Separate the series of infinite sequences in 2 subsets, those beginning with a 1, 2, or 3, and those beginning with a 4, 5, or 6. For every sequence that starts with 1, consider an exact same sequence starting with a 4. There exists 1 and only 1 such sequence. The same relationship holds between sequences starting with 2 and 5, and sequences starting with 3 and 6. By implication, if there is a 1-to-1 and onto mapping between the two sets, they must be isomorphic, and isomorphic sets have the same cardinality. If we can divide one set into two subsets of equal cardinality, then the set must be even.
Second, note that every die roll sequence in the old system that starts with a 1, 2, or 3 will result in zero hits. In fact, while the infinite sequence of die rolls may exist, no one ever rolls them; they don't matter.
Now note that if we ordered all the results in ascending order, the (N-1)/2the element would result in zero hits. As the cardinality of the set is even, we must find the (N+1)/2th element and the number of hits it has.
This (N+1)/2th hit will be the lowest number of hits in the sequences that start with 4, 5, or 6. I will note that, at worst (so, yeah ... my proof is sucky) we can consider the number of hits of any sequence that starts 4,1,........ This will result in 1 hits.
So, the median of the old method for rolling beams is the average of the (N-1)/2th element (0) and the (N+1)/2th element (1). The old median is 0.5.
Old Median: 0.5
New Median: 1.
If you balance by average, nothing has changed. If you balance by Median, beams have improved.
You can also consider balance by Mode, the most common outcome. I think this method is crap, and most designers will, too, but you can do it --- it only helps my argument!
The Mode is the result that is most common. By exhaustion, above, the Mode of the proposed beam mechanic is 1. Again, it is slightly harder to get the mode of the old mechanic, as the number of results is infinite, but I hope I won't have to write a full proof about why the Mode of the old sequence is 0.
Old Mode: 0
New Mode: 1.
At least, by the major balancing statistics, beams have actually improved. Now, there are other concerns that you might have -- harder to get explosions to cause collateral damage, perhaps -- but I will remind beam users that one of the reasons I overheard that the Whitestar was given a second die of beam is that the first die was too unreliable. So, reliability and predictability are valuable themselves; apparently more than extreme results. Arguing that, and then arguing that you should still have the ability to "roll up", means that you are simply arguing for a beam upgrade in general. Which is it to be?
I think that KNOWING I'm going to get some hits is valuable. Maybe I don't want to explode that ship all over my fightercraft, for example. I've seen my opponents lose a lot of fighters due to their own overeager beam fire, and predictability would be valuable there.
Average: The average of a set of outcomes i elements of N is defined as: (sorry if the ASCII art doesn't come out right:
....N
.(Sum) value/N
....i
I think that we agree that the change in the mechanic involved does not update the average --- it started at 1, and it's staying at one.
Median: The median of a set of outcomes, i element of the universe of results, N is done by ordering the values of the i events in an ascending order, and selecting the N/2th element, or averaging (N-1)/2 and (N+1)/2 if the cardinality of N is even. Here, the proofs get a little harder.
The median for the new method we can do by exhaustion. There are 36 outcomes: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4, 5-5, 5-6, 1-4, 1-5, 2-4, 2-5, 3-4, 3-5, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 1-6, 2-6, 3-6. The values are:
0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2
The average of 1 and 1 is 1 --- so the median of the new method is 1.
The median for the old method is more difficult, but there are an infinite set of possibilities. However, it can still be calculated. Consider all possible sets of infinite sequences of die rolls. We need to find the middle pair of the sequence.
First of all, we must establish that number of these sequences is even. This is easy; we can claim that the number of sequences is divisible evenly by 2 by example. Separate the series of infinite sequences in 2 subsets, those beginning with a 1, 2, or 3, and those beginning with a 4, 5, or 6. For every sequence that starts with 1, consider an exact same sequence starting with a 4. There exists 1 and only 1 such sequence. The same relationship holds between sequences starting with 2 and 5, and sequences starting with 3 and 6. By implication, if there is a 1-to-1 and onto mapping between the two sets, they must be isomorphic, and isomorphic sets have the same cardinality. If we can divide one set into two subsets of equal cardinality, then the set must be even.
Second, note that every die roll sequence in the old system that starts with a 1, 2, or 3 will result in zero hits. In fact, while the infinite sequence of die rolls may exist, no one ever rolls them; they don't matter.
Now note that if we ordered all the results in ascending order, the (N-1)/2the element would result in zero hits. As the cardinality of the set is even, we must find the (N+1)/2th element and the number of hits it has.
This (N+1)/2th hit will be the lowest number of hits in the sequences that start with 4, 5, or 6. I will note that, at worst (so, yeah ... my proof is sucky) we can consider the number of hits of any sequence that starts 4,1,........ This will result in 1 hits.
So, the median of the old method for rolling beams is the average of the (N-1)/2th element (0) and the (N+1)/2th element (1). The old median is 0.5.
Old Median: 0.5
New Median: 1.
If you balance by average, nothing has changed. If you balance by Median, beams have improved.
You can also consider balance by Mode, the most common outcome. I think this method is crap, and most designers will, too, but you can do it --- it only helps my argument!
The Mode is the result that is most common. By exhaustion, above, the Mode of the proposed beam mechanic is 1. Again, it is slightly harder to get the mode of the old mechanic, as the number of results is infinite, but I hope I won't have to write a full proof about why the Mode of the old sequence is 0.
Old Mode: 0
New Mode: 1.
At least, by the major balancing statistics, beams have actually improved. Now, there are other concerns that you might have -- harder to get explosions to cause collateral damage, perhaps -- but I will remind beam users that one of the reasons I overheard that the Whitestar was given a second die of beam is that the first die was too unreliable. So, reliability and predictability are valuable themselves; apparently more than extreme results. Arguing that, and then arguing that you should still have the ability to "roll up", means that you are simply arguing for a beam upgrade in general. Which is it to be?
I think that KNOWING I'm going to get some hits is valuable. Maybe I don't want to explode that ship all over my fightercraft, for example. I've seen my opponents lose a lot of fighters due to their own overeager beam fire, and predictability would be valuable there.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
Doesnt really help the argument to be honest, and to be honest if I wanted a mathematical theorem I'd pick up a maths text book CZ
No one is debating the fact that the maths of the two methods, whats being debated is whether its preferably to have consistently average damage or erratic damage where you have the occasional chance of scoring a massive hit.
For the record my original idea though if you backtrack WASNT for 6s to do 2 hits it was for 6s to be rolled again (in essence the current beam rules but with dice only 'exploding' on 6s, and rerolls allowed for the initial misses) Personally I still prefer that to the 2 hits on 6s as it DOES still allow for uber hits but much MUCH less frequently.
No one is debating the fact that the maths of the two methods, whats being debated is whether its preferably to have consistently average damage or erratic damage where you have the occasional chance of scoring a massive hit.
For the record my original idea though if you backtrack WASNT for 6s to do 2 hits it was for 6s to be rolled again (in essence the current beam rules but with dice only 'exploding' on 6s, and rerolls allowed for the initial misses) Personally I still prefer that to the 2 hits on 6s as it DOES still allow for uber hits but much MUCH less frequently.
Nightmares about Minbari
Mongoose
Just a point, beams have to be able to carve practically any ship in half some of the time if they are to keep to what's seen on the show. Can anyone remember a Vorlon or shadow beam hitting a ship and not slicing it neatly in two?
I'm not suggesting that beams should be doing this every time they hit, however they should retain the capacity to do this. IMHO these new rules don't seam to allow for that sort of massive damage output.
I can see that beams can be too random at the moment, and if it's the other side that rolls all the big beam hits then it does feel broken.
However I'd rather keep the e2 rules than go with the proposals seen on here, but that's just my personal preference.
I'm not suggesting that beams should be doing this every time they hit, however they should retain the capacity to do this. IMHO these new rules don't seam to allow for that sort of massive damage output.
I can see that beams can be too random at the moment, and if it's the other side that rolls all the big beam hits then it does feel broken.
However I'd rather keep the e2 rules than go with the proposals seen on here, but that's just my personal preference.
