Idea: fix double and triple damage weapons

[Burger]

Of course you realize, the maximum potential damage of a beam is infinite...

Yep. That has been discussed. :wink:

I bet that was an exciting discussion...

"Hey, the maximum damage potential of a beam is infinite!"
"Don't be silly"
"Well what if I keep rolling sixes forever then?"
"Oh yeah you're right"

 

[Na-Po]

From a personnal point of view I considere a prob under 10% equal to 0.
(in order to estimate the "potential" damages done by a weapon, especially for beams)

 

[Wulf Corbett]

"Hey, the maximum damage potential of a beam is infinite!"
"Don't be silly"
"Well what if I keep rolling sixes forever then?"
"Oh yeah you're right"

Slightly more involved... my contribution was a regular opponent who would roll Beam rerolls ludicrously well - but only when playing Minbari! To the extent we had to stop him playing Minbari because he skewed the playtest results - which was a pity as he knew the Minbari fleet best!

Difficult to test the balance of a fleet when they regularly get twice the number of hits as the statistical average...

Wulf

 

[CZuschlag]

Na-Po, your idea would be closer to 2 standard deviations (which is, on a Gaussian distribution, about the 92nd percentile...)

We're all pretty much talking the same language so far.

 

[Darzoni]

At first I liked the idea of multiplying the number of dice based on whether it's DD, TD, or QD.

Now that I think about it, I don't.

The reason being that ACTA requires a good deal of forethought in terms of fleet composition, placement, manuevering, and fire plans. And then ACTA tears up your plan and feeds it to the wolves, resulting in a rollercoaster of a game. I feel that changing how the damage multipliers work would change this fundamental aspect of the game. I /like/ the unpredictability of the current system of crits, I like the suspense and nail-biting.

 

[Burger]

Ignoring 10% chances is way to broad IMO. If you do something with a 10% chance every turn in a 10 turn game, chances are that it'll happen once!

 

[Na-Po]

What I mean is :

If i want to do 95 damage with one weapon I consider the proba do it,
if it's under 10% I won't try it or I might want to do less damage and consider the new proba.

it's also dealing with beams rolls.
If rolling 5 sixes in a row with one 6sided die is minus that 10% I won't consider that's its my goal. As a general I only ask my crew "realistic" shoots. So I'll ask for an "average" fire and calculate how ships have to fire.
It can be better or worse but unless fighting on "The Line" I won't ask my crew for endless sixes and crits on each hit ;-)

It's just a way to say where to stop (unless who are able to throw infinite sixes ;-) )

 

[Davesaint]

Aha! This definition of maximum to consider is actually progress! Others?

Of course chris we stil might have disagreements on what the Standard is to deviate from :wink:

Dave

 

[Chernobyl]

Ignoring 10% chances is way to broad IMO. If you do something with a 10% chance every turn in a 10 turn game, chances are that it'll happen once!

Binomial Distribution:
you've got about a 65% chance that it will happen at least once.
~35% for 0
~39% for 1
~19% for 2
~6% for 3
~1.5% for 4
<.2% for 5-10

Chernobyl
Excel Wizard...

 

[tschuma]

Burger

I like the idea, just haven't been able to respond until now.

Why don't you average the number of critials hits based on the wheter it is DD, TD, or QD? Example if a 5AD - TD gets 15 hits, and the resulting damage die rolls 5 sixes, that would equal 2 critical hits, asuming rounding up. You could aslo round down if the result was 4- sixes to just 1 critical. Then treat the remaining sixes as regular hits, 1 damage and 1 crew.

I don't know how the math works out, but this would reduce the number of criticals, based on your system, but still have a good chance of getting them. It also might satisify everyones concerns about the total number of critical hits.

Just my 2-cents worth

Tom

 

[Hugbiel]

I use the same math when playing ( actually before when i build strategies ) and I count the low probability as a good luck/bad luck factor. A whitestar single crit making 50 damage happen near 0.01% but it's a factor to count, if you trade this events against a fight with a dogffighter.

I thing that crit is good as it is in ACTA. More efficient in description of the ship, make the number of roll reasonable..
But more AD must be more expensive than less AD and be seen as more potent. To have the real value of weapon you must give points to "effects" crit, points who are not multiplied. That's increase the output of the single effect weapon.
High energy weapon is likely to make more efficient, more devastating and more powerfull damages, but are more localised than lower but more numerous ones. The first beeing the TD the second the single D. Weapon on an abbai's Bimith is lot of Ad but TwL not AP.

But I think that some ship must have some imunity to crit from weaker weapon just like some nowaday's warship have 2 to 4 dispersed system for every task in order to resist, when some others have only one to get the maximum power from the minimum cost. ( crit imunity 5+, limit TD crit to DD, DD to single, single to none ) It will make the War ship usefull against the hordes of crit-maker bee.

 

[Na-Po]

Well sounds like "redondancy" no ;-)

 

[Burger]

Okay. Here is another idea to address the initial problem. As a reminder, the problem is that high-AD single damage weapons are better than double or triple damage weapons with proportionally lower AD's. The main reason for them being better, is the number of crits effects caused.

How about, double and triple damage weapons have different crit effect tables. For example a single damage engines crit table could be

1-2: -1 speed
3-5: -2 speed
6:   -4 speed

Double damage could be

1-2: -1 speed
3-4: -2 speed
5:   -4 speed
6:   speed 0

Triple damage could be

1:   -1 speed
2-3: -2 speed
4-5: -4 speed
6:   speed 0, no special actions

Figures are just an example and would obviously need to be balanced. It probably adds too much complication for most people, though (myself included!!!)

 

[H]

it would work, but it's just more admin to add in, If you add different crit tables for AD, DD, TD, then why not add different ones for mass drivers, e-mines, ramming etc? then it just starts getting silly

 

[Na-Po]

Maybe just keep the idea of "double" number of hits for double weaponery
to get the same % of crits BUT double the damages from non crit hits.

 

[Romu]

Hm maybe give a +1 or +2 to crits (the second roll) for double & triple damage but dont multiply the damage and crew losses.

That'd be simpler and the double and tripple damage crits would still be more devastating, not in term of number but in effects. As they are not as quite likely to happen as Burger pointed out i think that'd be all right.

 

[H]

by the same token, it was once suggested to get E-Mines to roll a D3 for crits, so they did crit, but on the "lesser" crits.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Figures are just an example and would obviously need to be balanced. It probably adds too much complication for most people, though (myself included!!!)

not just added complication but might (only guessing here) upset the size of the book Mongoose are planning

 

[Reaverman]

I just want a simplified system, and if you start adding more tables and caveats, its just going to bog the game down

 

[Burger]

Yes true more tables is bad and complicates it. How about, crit effects are also multiplied by damage multipliers? So when you lose 1AD from a double damage weapon, it actually removes 2AD. -1 Speed fom a triple damage weapon, you lose 3 speed.