Idea: fix double and triple damage weapons

[Burger]

not really high AD ones need to all hit to get those multiple chances of crits, whereas a low AD TD weapon would get 3 chances of crits from every single hit.

Show your working out please? Calculate averages like I've done and you'll see they are equal.

36AD weapon on hull 5 will get 12 hits on average, so will do 2 crits on average.
18AD DD weapon will get 6 hits on average, will roll 12 damage dice... so will get 2 crits on average.

See... identical.

 

[Locutus9956]

1AD triple damage, attacking hull 6. You are going to get 0.1666 hits, tripled gives 0.5 damage and 0.027777 crits. Each crit does an average of 4.375 damage, so you're looking at an average damage output of 0.6215.

3AD single damage, attacking hull 6. You are going to get 0.5 hits, each doing 0.5 damage and 0.08333 crits. Each crit does an average of 1.458 damage, so you're looking at an average damage output of 0.6125.

As you can see they are identical.

Well actually theyre not 0.6215 /= 0.6125, but I assume that was just a typo

 

[Wulf Corbett]

not really high AD ones need to all hit to get those multiple chances of crits, whereas a low AD TD weapon would get 3 chances of crits from every single hit.

Which is, statistically, exactly the same chance, once you hit... This idea does increase the number of potential crits from successful hits, but reduced the chances of a lucky one-shot kill (multiplying one of the high-effect crits). Given that DD TD & QD weapons always have very few AD, the overall effect would be that these weapons get more dangerous, but more consistant.

I think I like it, but I'm not sure it'll be generally well received, it IS a fairly fundamental change in terms of damage effects. Personally, I believe that EVERY hit should roll on the so-called 'critical' hit table (just rename it the hit table and add a few more trivial results) - anything that damages a ship SHOULD damage it's systems.

Wulf

 

[CZuschlag]

Burger,

It's entirely possible, of course, that what you're stating is what the designers were attempting to generate; some weapons work by destruction, and other work by disablement. With the system above, the only weapons that would work by destructive means are Dilgar Pulsars and Bolters.

And, because I'm that way, I have to do some general math recalculations:

1AD, TD Expected Damage calculation: (probability of hitting) x (1/6(each of the damage results) + 1/6 x 3 (TD) x (avg. critical damage) (x2 if precise)).

So, 1 AD, TD vs. Hull 6 is

1/6 x (1/6(1+3+3+3+3+3) + 1/2(avg. critical damage))

= 0.4445 + (CritAvgDmg)/12

Whereas 3 AD gives

1/6 x (1/6(0+1+1+1+1+1) + 1/6(avg. critical damage)) x 3 (the attack dice)

= 0.4167 + (CritAvgDmg)/12.

So the bulkhead actually matters approximately 10% -- katadder's math is spot on, Burger.

 

[Burger]

So the bulkhead actually matters approximately 10% -- katadder's math is spot on, Burger.

Oh yeah, the bulkhead I didn't factor in. It will be less than 10% because you're not working out the average critical damage, which is 1.458. It's actually just under 5%.
But, the single damage weapon gets 3x as many crit effects. I think that more than makes up for 5% less damage.

And katadder doesn't seem to have done any maths, just used "gut feeling"

 

[CZuschlag]

CritAvgDmg, by the way, is

1/36(0+0+1+1+2+3
+0+0+1+1+2+3
+0+0+0+0+0+3
+0+0+0+0+2+3
+0+0+0+0+1+2
+0+4+4+3.5+7+14) = 1.5972

Each row is one of the first die result on the crit table.

A slight, but important correction to the value cited, as criticals are a substantial part of total yield. It's also worth noting that CritAvgCrew is worse by a goodly bit:

1/36(0+0+0+0+1+1
+0+0+0+0+1+1
+1+1+1+3+3+3
+1+1+1+0+2+4
+2+2+3+3+3+4
+1+3+4+3.5+14+7) = 2.0694

And with such a change, we'll see an awful lot of ships run out of crew before damage.

 

[Burger]

To be honest going into this many decimal places is missing the point. I think (hope) you agree with me, that 1AD TD is worse than 3AD single damage. The actual damage and crew loss is very similar (OK not identical due to bulkhead hits, but we're talking a few % difference). But the 3AD one has 3x the crit effects, making it a far superior weapon.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Make it similar to VAS
No don't add a damage dice column to weapons! That is not needed and is too much of a change. We already have the DD and TD traits. Instead of a double damage weapon doing double the damage, make it roll double the damage dice. So if you get 4 hits on a DD weapon, you roll 8 damage dice. 4 hits on a TD weapon, you roll 12 damage dice. This would keep the average damage the same, but equalize the crit effects. So a 6AD weapon would be the same as a 3AD DD weapon and a 2AD TD weapon.

Good idea or crazy madman??

I seem to remember suggesting something very similar last year and getting short shrift.......

 

[CZuschlag]

Yes -- and, tactically, no.

What the heck does Chris mean?

In net average damage dispensed, which is probably the most important evaluation, you are correct -- 3 AD is nastier. It's actually even more important when you consider interceptor effects (as the game currently stands today).

But the crit mechanism right now provides a Gank dimension. Sure, that Rohric will only probably do 15 damage this turn. But, it can, with reasonable luck, perhaps generate say, 50-60 if it hits one of the two superyahtzee crits occurs. Does possibility affect what order its opponent fires ships in? Often it does, and it should. With the mechanism cited, the maximum reach threshold is lowered.

As to katadder's point --- I wholeheartedly agree. I have Chicago-area players who have almost dropped the game because they think Critical effects happen far TOO often. For one-weapon arc ships, this change is absolutely fundamental, and boresight ships are often hosed by all-stop crits. I don't want to fathom what this does to the Drazi, Drakh Raiders, or the WhiteStar, who only have one arc and lose their life when they lose their mobility.

Critical effects are powerful right now, even outside of damage. Losing SA is even a big deal. I don't think, given the criticals in the chart that exist now, that this is a workable premise, espeically as the ships get bigger.

I prefer the as-is state, but that is simply my opinion.

 

[Burger]

OK, general consensus is good idea but it will make crits too frequent. How about if crits had to be "confirmed" like in VAS? Every crit, roll D6... on 1-3 it is not a crit, 4-6 it is a crit. That will halve the number of crits. Thus the DD and TD weapons will be equivalent to a high AD weapon, and the number of crits will not be too extreme.

 

[emperorpenguin]

OK, general consensus is good idea but it will make crits too frequent. How about if crits had to be "confirmed" like in VAS? Every crit, roll D6... on 1-3 it is not a crit, 4-6 it is a crit. That will halve the number of crits. Thus the DD and TD weapons will be equivalent to a high AD weapon, and the number of crits will not be too extreme.

No that will slow the game down. You were dead set against including VAS rules when I proposed this :wink:

 

[Davesaint]

The other thing you aren't taking into consideration in your calculations burger is AP and SAP. One of the concepts in ACTA is that weapons that have modifiers to hit hull numbers tend to have less dice than weapons that dont. For example - The Whitestar has a 1 AD SAP Triple Damage Precise beam. Against a Hull 6 opponent you have a 1 in 2 or 50% chance of hitting with this beam. If you rolled 3 dice for damage(single damage) when you account for precise you would get 3/3 and one crit on average.

With 3 AD, no specials, against hull 6, on average you would hit once every other turn.(2 turns of firing = 6AD. 1 in 6 Chance of hitting) Which would give you a 2 in 3 chance to score 1/1, a 1 in 6 chance of scoring either a bulkhead hit or a critical.

If all things were equal - chances to hit - your math would be correct. However what you are comparing from your game experience is not equal.

Thus, the math is kind of Fuzzy.

Dave

 

[Burger]

AP or SAP is nothing to do with it.

All other traits being equal, 6AD is the same as 3AD DD, is the same as 2AD TD.

And EP yes I was against it because it wasn't in the right context. This proposal actually has a reason; that is that high damage multiplier weapons are currently worse than high AD weapons.

 

[CZuschlag]

This one will take me a while to stew on.

We'd have to rebalance both systems that interact with critical hits, GEG and Masters of Destruction. It would likely solve the Drakh fighter issue as it currently stands, but GEG ..... we'd probably be OK with the GEG.

MoD is a big part of the Dilgar damage curve, and forcing confirmation would take it down. Not that the Targrath couldn't get a bit taken off the top as it stands. The others (especially the Rohric and Heavier) might need some love.

We're also taking away the hordes-of-dice aspect that the Quad-Array armed Abbai have to make up for their lack of firepower. They, and similar ships (perhaps the Nova, Haltona, T'Loth, Rongoth) might need a small boost to help out. Who knows --- they could all probably stand more dice, period.

Vorlon TD beam monstrosities might need to be managed, too. DD would be fine. The Shadows might now be considered kinda weak, so I don't worry there as much.

It's a big-time rethink, but an interesting rethink. I'll need a while to consider this.

 

[CZuschlag]

Davesaint,

Because the mechanism under consideration is purely after hits have been evaluated, and only at the damage table, all mechanisms that impact getting to the damage table itself are invariant -- so SAP, AP, Mini-beam, Beam, Anti-fighter are not an element of this balance metric.

Those that are in play at the damage table at later are: GEG, Masters of Destruction, Ancient Damage Tables, Precise, Adaptive Armor, and E-mine. Those are the damage-table dependent evaluations we are making.

 

[emperorpenguin]

And EP yes I was against it because it wasn't in the right context. This proposal actually has a reason; that is that high damage multiplier weapons are currently worse than high AD weapons.

I suggested it because I felt it would benefit the game, you are suggesting it because you feel it would benefit the game. That is the context :wink:

I think that with your two suggestions (damage rolls & crit/no crit) this is heading exactly where I proposed, taking the best elements of VAS.

 

[Burger]

And EP yes I was against it because it wasn't in the right context. This proposal actually has a reason; that is that high damage multiplier weapons are currently worse than high AD weapons.

I suggested it because I felt it would benefit the game, you are suggesting it because you feel it would benefit the game. That is the context :wink:

I think that with your two suggestions (damage rolls & crit/no crit) this is heading exactly where I proposed, taking the best elements of VAS.

TBH I can't remember your proposal... so I'll say which elements of VAS I am not suggesting.
- I am not suggesting having both "to hit" and "to penetrate armour" rolls. That would significantly slow down the game, and require a lot of rebalancing and playtesting.
- I am not suggesting a "damage dice" column for each weapon, this change would be influenced purely by existing weapon traits.
- I am not suggesting we put all our spaceships in the ocean :lol: We all know the Abbai would always win then.

 

[CZuschlag]

Burger --

Ships in the ocean? The Abbai'd rule!

Yep, the Comm Disruptors would probably inflict some awful damage with water to act as a wave carrier; hook up some techno to the Comm Disruptor and they'd have the Wave Motion Gun.

 

[emperorpenguin]

TBH I can't remember your proposal... so I'll say which elements of VAS I am not suggesting.
- I am not suggesting having both "to hit" and "to penetrate armour" rolls. That would significantly slow down the game, and require a lot of rebalancing and playtesting.
- I am not suggesting a "damage dice" column for each weapon, this change would be influenced purely by existing weapon traits.
- I am not suggesting we put all our spaceships in the ocean :lol: We all know the Abbai would always win then.

Point 1: Yes it would require a lot of rebalancing and playtesting. Would it slow down the game? NO. How long did the tourney games of VAS take? No longer than ACTA!
Point 2: It is damn close to that though! :wink:
Point 3: We'd need a new trait "aquatic"!

Your ideas though would still need playtesting and the 1-3 isn't but 4-6 is crit roll would slow games down

 

[Burger]

1: Yes it would slow the game down a lot. VAS is much simpler than ACTA. Adding it to ACTA would slow it down much more.
2: Yes it is very similar... basically it is replacing single damage with 1DD, double damage with 2DD, triple damage with 3DD. But there'd be no work to do, in deciding how many DD each weapon gets. That is already decided by the weapon traits.

Yes confirming crits would be an extra roll which would cause slow-down. But nowhere near as much as rolling against armour. There'd be no modifiers to the roll, and it wouldn't depend on the target's "armor" o any other value. Just pick up the dice that rolled a crit, and re-roll them.