This is why either my or Humbaba's suggestions seem to fit the bill best, with my suggestion particularly better with 1 or 2 AD beams before both curves levelling out nicely. They also both reduce the massive beam of death moments (and the massive total miss beams) without entirely removing their possibility.
Beam-Burger Compromise?
- Thread starter Humbaba
- Start date
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Burger said:
Personally, I dont' see it as a major nerf to beams. How many other weapons can score more criticals than they have AD? All other weapon systems seem to fair ok, so I don't see why it would be a problem for beams.
IMHO, when you see a big beam roll up, it is seldom the extra damage that is the issue - it's the extra crits. If someone is lucky enough to get 14 hits from a 2AD beam, you can pretty certain that they'll probably end up with more criticals than averages would suggest.
Regards,
Dave
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
It is a nerf.Foxmeister said:
Beams can only cause one crit per hit, the same as almost any other weapon in the game. They are balanced on the understanding that they're a weapon type that can cause more hits (and therefore more crits) than they have AD. If you want to to take that ability away from them, give them back the AD that they would have had in the first place.
Da Boss - this is correct, however part of this balance is that to get 1 hit per AD, you need to assume that occasionally you will get big misses and big hits. Chopping off the top end of beams would have an effect on balance and therefore adopting one of the alternate beam systems would be a lot simpler (if not better too).
Foxmeister
Mongoose
nekomata fuyu said:
No other weapon system in the game can cause more crits than they have AD, and I'm not really seeing that beams have less AD for the most part than other weapons either. They "win" because they ignore hull, cannot be intercepted, and can roll up whereas they "lose" because they can't be scout redirected or gain any other kind of re-roll. The crit effect is, in my opinion, an unwarranted artifact of the roll ups.
Regards,
Dave
My friends and I tested out triggy's take on beam rules and it seemed to work pretty well for us.
It makes beams much more consistent but has less of a Chaos factor without tossing the Chaos factor all together.
Out of interest, the new system should be done so it matches the current one mathmatically, but with less of a chance for crazy dice rolls running away with the beam dice.
It makes beams much more consistent but has less of a Chaos factor without tossing the Chaos factor all together.
Out of interest, the new system should be done so it matches the current one mathmatically, but with less of a chance for crazy dice rolls running away with the beam dice.
Guess in some ways I don't think tht the high end of beams was taken into account properly. Down side is easy to do, you miss, you don't add damage to the enemy. The roll up being unlimited (especially with crits) means you have to assume any 1 AD can destroy any ship in the game.
I have gotten the one in a million shot where I had a Tiraca destroy a hyperion with just it's beam shot. Nobody at the table felt good about it (5 skirmish game) and it ruined the day... think it was turn 3, second turn of anything firing.
Anyway... I think it depends on how you feel about crits. If you like them, you'll love the beam rules. Giant swings of luck are fun for you. If you don't like them, you probably don't like the beam rules either, as they are almost all luck.
Ripple
I have gotten the one in a million shot where I had a Tiraca destroy a hyperion with just it's beam shot. Nobody at the table felt good about it (5 skirmish game) and it ruined the day... think it was turn 3, second turn of anything firing.
Anyway... I think it depends on how you feel about crits. If you like them, you'll love the beam rules. Giant swings of luck are fun for you. If you don't like them, you probably don't like the beam rules either, as they are almost all luck.
Ripple
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Burger said:
Apples and oranges comparisons I'm afraid.
Even if you could just ignore all other factors (which you can't!), a Milani has more AD than a Marata, an Avioki more AD than a Kaliva, a Tashkat more AD than a Takata, a Hyperion more AD than a Hyperion Rail, a Sho'Kos more AD than a Sho'Kov, and all of these examples are beam ships vs non-beam ships. However these examples are flawed, but not quite as much as most of yours since they are at least the same basic hulls.
The only one of any vague relevance in your list is the Omega and the Pulse Omega since they are the same hulls and therefore all other considerations other than weapon loadout is eliminated, but the Pulse Omegas don't have DD weapons at all, and don't have mini-beams. You can't compare the two and say that the gain in AD on the pulse cannons is all down to the loss of 10 AD of beam.
Regards,
Dave
ALL of yours are totally flawed; at least mine were comparing like-for-like; the main-line Battle level ship for different races.Foxmeister said:
Marata and Milani have different roles, one loses the beam to gain better defenses. It's a simple swap-out. You can't use that as evidence that beams don't have lower ADs than non-beams.
Tashkat vs Takata, well Takata has 16AD of e-mines which is more than the 10AD of beam, and the beam is Slow Loading to boot. So that one is totally false. The beam ship most definitely has lower ADs than the non-beam.
Hyperion vs Rail Hyperion, WTF? Hyperion has 4AD of beam, rail has 6AD of non-beam.. plus it's a PL below. Try counting ADs of a hyperion vs 2 rail hyperions, the beam ship loses out 4 - 12!
Little Narny ships, only has 1AD of beam so how can that have more ADs than anything?
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Burger said:
At least my comparisons (well apart from my Hyperion/Rail Hyperion one!) attempted to eliminate as many of the other variables as possible whereas yours do not.
How is a Hurr Gunship like a WS Gunship? They are *nothing* like each except they are the same PL and you are completely ignoring all the other differences. Ditto all your other examples.
As I said previously, the only one of vague relevance is the Omega/Pulse Omega and I've already covered that. All you've done is say that the non-beam equipped Pulse Omega has more AD than a beam-equipped Omega and that this difference is solely attributable to the re-roll characteristics of a beam which is rather a strawman way of supporting your argument.
I've freely admitted my comparisons are flawed, but IMHO they are less flawed that yours.
Regards,
Dave
All this argument of whether a beam-equipped ship is more or less powerful than an approximately similar non-beam-equipped ship is a separate issue. By keeping the average of 1AD = 1 hit for any alternate beam system, the balance remains as it is. If that balance needs to be tweaked, it can be done by altering either the beam's AD or the beam-equipped ship's secondary armament.
As for comparison between Hyperion and Pulse Hyperion, or between Omega and Pulse Omega, it should be pointed out that the beam weapons in both cases are boresight whereas the pulse weapons are not. This, of course, is also a different issue, well argued in other threads.
As for comparison between Hyperion and Pulse Hyperion, or between Omega and Pulse Omega, it should be pointed out that the beam weapons in both cases are boresight whereas the pulse weapons are not. This, of course, is also a different issue, well argued in other threads.
You're right, mine do not attempt to do that because that is absolutely impossible thing to do. Mine examples compare similar roles of ship, they are all main-line Battle level ships, they are not "fancy trick" or sneaky ships. They are the battle level ship of each race that are all meant to have roughly equal firepower to each other. And the ones that have the beam trait, have lower ADs than the ones that do not.Foxmeister said:
Foxmeister
Mongoose
Burger said:
Except that is a completely false premise! There is nothing written anywhere that all main line (as opposed to specialized) Battle ships should have roughly the same firepower. They should, in an ideal world, have the same combat *effectiveness* but that's a completely different argument. Even if it weren't simplistically looking at number of AD is just a nonsense.
A WS has less "firepower" than a Var'Nic, but both are supposed to perform the same role. In that particular case, the differences between the two craft more than make up the difference betweem the relative levels of firepower making the WS a more effective ship in combat, and the same can be said for the WS Gunship and Hurr Gunship (to a greater extent).
Regards,
Dave
I think the question needs to be asked - what do people expect from beams in the game ??
On screen they were simply devestating weapons that killed your ship if hit by them.
Is this what is wanted ? Beacuse they can do that now but they are very random - hit big or not hit at all swing games.
I'd like the randomness reduced - hence my liking the BBS (although I am in a minority) - not sure about the two new ones as they still have the roll up chance - although much lower it looks on the graph?
On screen they were simply devestating weapons that killed your ship if hit by them.
Is this what is wanted ? Beacuse they can do that now but they are very random - hit big or not hit at all swing games.
I'd like the randomness reduced - hence my liking the BBS (although I am in a minority) - not sure about the two new ones as they still have the roll up chance - although much lower it looks on the graph?
Similar threads
