Beam-Burger Compromise?

[Humbaba]

OK – a quick thought on a compromise between the current beam system and the Burger Alternative Beam System (BABS).

In order to preserve some of the “beamy” feel of re-rolls that some players like how about

1,2 = 0
3,4,5 = 1
6 = 2 with progressive re-rolls

On re-rolls you need to keep rolling 6’s, but each adds 2 more damage then the previous one (the first successful re-roll adds 4 damage, a second would add another 6 damage, etc.)

It works out to beams that average about 0.98 damage per die with rare big damage potential.

Tear it apart at your whim – I have all of 12 minutes invested in the idea.

 

[Triggy]

Your system actually works out at exactly 1 for an average.

How about another alternative (just to throw it into the mix):

1-2 = 0 hits
3-4 = 1 hit
5-6 = 1 hit and a reroll (keep rerolling if necessary)

This comes somewhere between your idea and the current beam rules.

We now have four options on the table in order of "beamyness":

Current rules
My suggestion above
Humbaba's suggestion above
Burger's Beam System

All have the same average but there is less variance as you go down the list. Where do you think the best balance lies?

 

[Da Boss]

perhaps a poll :wink:

 

[Burger]

Graphs of these things are always good

Shows number of hits plotted against 10000x occurance, for a 6AD beam, rolled 1,000,000 times.

RED = original beam, as you can see it has high probabilities very high or low hit numbers.
GREEN = Burger's beam system
YELLOW = Humbaba
BLUE = Triggy

 

[nekomata fuyu]

I must say that on paper I think that Triggy's looks the most elegant. Instead of worrying about various numbers of hits, you have miss, hit, or hit (repeat chance).

Edit: A variation of Triggy's system which doesn't attempt to stick to the average of 1AD = 1 hit...
Beams require 3+ to hit, and you roll up 6s. Can be combined with CAF/Scout/etc, allowing you to reroll all of the first set of dice, without requiring 6s.

I haven't worked out the averages, but it could be an interesting one to look at if only because beams would no longer be exempt from the lock-on type bonuses.

 

[Humbaba]

Nice graph Burger - is the hook at the end caused by it being a summation of all of the 14+ hit results? It ammuses me that our graphs are so close to one another's. It would be interesting to see which system appeals to who as it comes down to a matter of taste (the taste for beamyness). Triggy's method is far more elegent then mine, so I may be tempted to try it out to see how I feel about it. It all comes down to the taste test...

 

[Tolwyn]

Why not bend the number of rerolls on the AD number of the firing ship?
Could represent the available energy a ship has for the beam

 

[Burger]

Yeah the hook at the end of the red graph is because the number of 15, 16, 17... hits are actually significant, and they are added up, the "14" column is actually "14 or more". Actually looking at it, all the numbers are +1... so the "1" column is actually 0, 2 is actually 1, etc.

I do like Triggy's too, nice and simple.

Tolwyn if you come up with a rule I'll run the stats... but it seems far too complicated, and very hard to retain the averages (essential for avoiding stat changes).

 

[Foxmeister]

Can you run these through for a 2AD beam and produce the same graphs? I'd like to see the effect on the White Star specifically.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

Your wish is my command :lol:

Existing beam (red line) shows its massive variance, very high probability of nothing. Burger's beam system (green line) does "interesting" things due to not being able to get 2 hits off 1 dice; therefore 5 hits is impossible, and 3 hits is less likely than 4. Triggy's (blue line) looks best to me.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Why not bend the number of rerolls on the AD number of the firing ship?
Could represent the available energy a ship has for the beam

I've suggested it before, but a simple "fix" would be to cap the number of re-rolls available. Just add "duration" to the beam trait, say "Beam, Duration X" where X is the number of rerolls possible to the weapon. So a duration 2 beam could reroll the dice twice then stop. Duration 5 would get to roll five times after the initial volley, and so on.

It'd need to be tested for balance but it would eliminate silly runaway beams that wipe out ships several levels above the firing ship in one shot.

 

[Burger]

David, what you suggest is toning down beams, by reducing the average hits. So they would need increased AD to compensate. Long runs of beam hits is only half of the problem: the other half is long runs of 0 or 1 hit from a 6AD beam. A new beam system should solve both problems while retaining all ships at their existing stats. Therefore very little playtesting \o/

 

[Lord David the Denied]

I think my suggestion better reflects "in-game" background than "meta-game" issues like probabilities and number-crunching, but then I always hated maths, so make of that what you will.

 

[Burger]

Ya maybe, but if your suggestion was implemented, people will still complain that beams are broken and too random. So it wouldn't actually solve anything.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

They'd be less random if we went back to the previous system, with capped rerolls for duration. You could rely on a beam a lot more then.

 

[Foxmeister]

Existing beam (red line) shows its massive variance, very high probability of nothing. Burger's beam system (green line) does "interesting" things due to not being able to get 2 hits off 1 dice; therefore 5 hits is impossible, and 3 hits is less likely than 4. Triggy's (blue line) looks best to me.

Thanks for that. It's more or less what I expected - and I concur that Triggy's solution looks best here.

Regards,

Dave

 

[lastbesthope]

Burger, any chance you could run through the original 1E Beam system and plot that for comparison?

LBH

 

[Da Boss]

Burger, any chance you could run through the original 1E Beam system and plot that for comparison?

LBH

Will that not be a problem as the starting number depends on the armour value of the ship being fired at and if the beam has any AP or SAP traits?

:?:

 

[Silvereye]

Burger, any chance you could run through the original 1E Beam system and plot that for comparison?

LBH

Will that not be a problem as the starting number depends on the armour value of the ship being fired at and if the beam has any AP or SAP traits?

:?:

Kind of brings back memories of using Obsidians number cruncher to see what could gut an Explorer in 1 Beam volley. Shadow Ships and Neshatan Gunships were always favourites.

 

[Triggy]

Well, should the method I propose be the one we push for inclusion in the next playtest pack then? At the very least as an optional rule if not an official one...