Motion to Change the beam trait.

[Wulf Corbett]

Errr okay. I dont want to hear you EVER whine about an overpowered ship or anything ever again then.

And have you? I mean, possibly so, but I can't remember.

Ill never understand why some people are so hostile to the idea that maybe the rules arent perfect. Not like its the bible or something.

I don't mind some constructive criticism, hell I playtest the changes. But just for onece I'd like to see criticism that starts "I wonder if this might be better" or "Do you think this might be wrong" or even "I don't like this rule" instead of this incessant "THIS IS BROKEN!" "THIS IS WRONG!" and the obvious implication "I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS WRONG!"

The problem I have isn't the rules, it's the arrogance displayed by everyone who states their own personal preferences and failures to cope with the game as clear and obvious facts proving the rules are wrong.

Wulf

 

[Chernobyl]

I'm full of ideas (and a load of other things)...

limit beam rerolls based on ship priority.

Patrol, skirmish (2)
Raid, Battle (3)
War (4)
Armageddon - no limit

OR

break beam down into categories, specifying number of re-rolls

ie, a "4AD Beam3, SAP, DD" beam would get 3 re-rolls.

a lot of people complained that beams weren't harsh enough pre-sfos, and so many ships got upgraded beam dice. hyperion and primus benefitted this, as did others.

if we add target numbers in "ACTA 2.0" we can go with a ruling that beam weapons ignore hull numbers, and simply hit based on target number and the current re-roll progression. that would increase effectiveness against bigger hull 5 and 6 ships.

Chernobyl

 

[Geekybiker]

And have you? I mean, possibly so, but I can't remember.

Of course Ive complained before. But I like to pick apart that stuff. Ive never made an assertion that the rules shouldnt be changed.

I don't mind some constructive criticism, hell I playtest the changes. But just for onece I'd like to see criticism that starts "I wonder if this might be better" or "Do you think this might be wrong" or even "I don't like this rule" instead of this incessant "THIS IS BROKEN!" "THIS IS WRONG!" and the obvious implication "I AM RIGHT AND EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES IS WRONG!"

The problem I have isn't the rules, it's the arrogance displayed by everyone who states their own personal preferences and failures to cope with the game as clear and obvious facts proving the rules are wrong.

Generally you can take most everything on this board with the exeception of rules quotations as opinion. I state my position, you state yours. Whatever. Im not saying that you have to agree with me. Just that Ive seen alot of people lament the usefullness of both hull 4 ships and fighters and that this change would help both without adversely affecting anything else.

If there are clear and obvious facts as to why this wont work, Id love to hear them. All Im really heard so far is "thats the way the rules are, so there." Which isnt really much of a debate point when we are looking for an answer to to WHY they are that way. I guess maybe you stated some "fluff" reasons but those have never really carried much weight for me and certainly I can't check them without going back and watch all the battle sequences. I dont even think that's a particularly good idea as the show itself isnt exactly a coherrent reference in terms of hard ship number like performance, size, etc.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

And have you? I mean, possibly so, but I can't remember.

Of course Ive complained before. But I like to pick apart that stuff. Ive never made an assertion that the rules shouldnt be changed.

Actually I meant that as a direct reply to your statement

I dont want to hear you EVER whine about an overpowered ship or anything ever again then.

So, have you ever heard me complain about that? About official designs, that is. I've agreed that some are too WEAK (SFoS Vorlons), I've helped in improving some (Tourney version Avioki), I even assisted in toning some down BEFORE release in playtest. But if I have an opinion I try, ernestly and resolutely, to present it as just that, opinion. If others would attempt to do the same and stop telling me what the true facts are, and how my opinions don't matter, I might even consider their opinions. As it is, no.

Wulf

 

[CZuschlag]

I'm one of the more vehement accusers of things being unbalanced there and there, but I don't really think there is a universal beam problem. Hull 4 is a big problem on a ship design, absolutely. It stings. But, it stings more against non-AP weaponry.

That's right! Look at the math, hits per die of weapon:

..........................Hull 4....Hull 6.......Hull Reduction Factor
Light Pulse............0.50.....0.16.............3.125
Twin Array............0.56....0.31..............1.836
Energy Pulsar.......0.75.....0.31..............2.419
Matter Cannon......0.66.....0.33..............2.000
Grav Lance...........0.83.....0.50..............1.666
Battle Laser..........1.77.....0.70..............2.529

Point for point, Hull 4 is actually weakest vs. basic pulse! The battle lasers are rough, but not overwhelming; right in line with twin-linked or CAFed pulse weaponry. You may have an argument that Hull 4 ships don't have enough hits as balanced, but I can't see that Beams hurt them too much, when the relative hits rate is proportional to CAFed basic weaponry.

 

[Triggy]

I'm one of the more vehement accusers of things being unbalanced there and there, but I don't really think there is a universal beam problem. Hull 4 is a big problem on a ship design, absolutely. It stings. But, it stings more against non-AP weaponry.

That's right! Look at the math, hits per die of weapon:

..........................Hull 4....Hull 6.......Hull Reduction Factor
Light Pulse............0.50.....0.16.............3.125
Twin Array............0.56....0.31..............1.836
Energy Pulsar.......0.75.....0.31..............2.419
Matter Cannon......0.66.....0.33..............2.000
Grav Lance...........0.83.....0.50..............1.666
Battle Laser..........1.77.....0.70..............2.529

Point for point, Hull 4 is actually weakest vs. basic pulse! The battle lasers are rough, but not overwhelming; right in line with twin-linked or CAFed pulse weaponry. You may have an argument that Hull 4 ships don't have enough hits as balanced, but I can't see that Beams hurt them too much, when the relative hits rate is proportional to CAFed basic weaponry.

Amen!

Hull 4 is exactly what it is meant to be - weak. The ships in question are either low PL and therefore either don't face many big weapons or have bucket loads of guns to compensate. The ships are balanced as it is and I like it that small ships have to use different tactics other than line up and shoot to be successful. As has been mentioned, weaker ships need support and should use their speed/apparent weakness to get into a position so hard to clear them out that they are real game winners.

 

[Geekybiker]

And have you? I mean, possibly so, but I can't remember.

Of course Ive complained before. But I like to pick apart that stuff. Ive never made an assertion that the rules shouldnt be changed.

Actually I meant that as a direct reply to your statement

I dont want to hear you EVER whine about an overpowered ship or anything ever again then.

So, have you ever heard me complain about that? About official designs, that is. I've agreed that some are too WEAK (SFoS Vorlons), I've helped in improving some (Tourney version Avioki), I even assisted in toning some down BEFORE release in playtest. But if I have an opinion I try, ernestly and resolutely, to present it as just that, opinion. If others would attempt to do the same and stop telling me what the true facts are, and how my opinions don't matter, I might even consider their opinions. As it is, no.

Wulf

Ahh.. Well Im pretty sure that I read posts from you saying one thing or another was unbalanced. Certainly not always the "rules are always right" sort. I dont think Ive really ran accross anyone here who seriously spouted the rules as gospel all the time.

As for the other, you'll save yourself alot of grief assuming most change suggestions are just opinion. Sometimes they ARE based on statistics, etc. Others just thoughts. Like for this discussion- The idea that hull 4 ships need to have improved survivability is strictly opinion. From my own experience, and what others have said on this forum. But I can show you math to prove how much worse beams are for hull 4 than 6, and how the change would affect most ships at least in terms of survivability. How that would change their overall effectiveness, that's alot more complex and beyond the level of analysis I can do in a really scientific fashion. So at least part of the effects of my opinion could be proved. Such is the way with alot of this stuff.

Im sure you've followed Triggy's tournament ships thread. I know that he has a formula that he's using to compute ships values. I have development my own as well. And that's really a mix of both. We can prove some of the stuff, (like hit percentage, etc) but other things like how speed and turn affects the effectiveness of a given weapons loadout. Well thats mostly an educated guess.

Anyhow, enough rambling. You can assume anything I say is opinion unless Im quoting rules or statistics.

 

[Reaverman]

I like beams as they are...in the Narns case...crap

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Ahh.. Well Im pretty sure that I read posts from you saying one thing or another was unbalanced. Certainly not always the "rules are always right" sort. I dont think Ive really ran accross anyone here who seriously spouted the rules as gospel all the time.

Sure, I'll argue that ideas are imbalanced, and some designs are peculiar. But rarely if ever actual official designs. The only ones I use, barring RBax Dilgar era ships.

Im sure you've followed Triggy's tournament ships thread.

Nope, haven't read a single message from it. Just like I never read a single message on point construction (I have in the past, I gave up). Two reasons;
1) 'balance' is a great way to make any game boring, bland, and pointless (and a numeric system to achieve it is a certain first step to min-maxing and munchkinism)
2) if I get to playtest any changes, they won't be these designs. And if they're not official, I almost certainly won't use them. Either way, I can wait. The ships I have do perfectly well for me.

Wulf

 

[Malarion]

Ok i skimmed the last few posts, seemed to be getting mostly blabber...... and funny accusations.


Beams are perfectly good as they are. Heck when you get to your third reroll, you already have a pretty low number of dice.

6AD against Hull4:
6AD at 2+ leaves 5 1. GO
5AD at 3+ gets 3.3 1. REROLL
3.3AD at 4+ gets 1.66 2. REROLL
1.66AD at 5+ gets 0.55 3. THIS IS CUT

Ok so if you cut at 2 rerolls you will lose 0.55 Hits at a 6AD BEAM AT SUPER AP...... uhhh i dont think that is a problem........
If someone gets lucky, this prolly wont play out at reroll number 3 and 4......

HELL there have been so many threads about crits and theyre associated problems/features so this is where you luck out. Not about how many hits you get in. Last game I won, cause i got a 6-6 crit with a prefect. With the matter cannon and NOT the beam......

 

[emperorpenguin]

My suggestion re: low hulled ships is......don't use them?.

And therein lies a flawed system.....

 

[Ripple]

Something to consider Wulf,

As a playtester you have a chance to get your input in before things see print. For those of us who aren't this is our first chance to make suggestions. Unless you taking the playtest materials and accepting them as is, no input from you, telling someone else to just accept what Mongoose puts out if pretty hypocritical. Just consider this playtest feedback from the rest of us.

Ripple

 

[Tank]

Hull 4 ships are mostly in the Patrol & Skirmish priorities, they arent supposed to be able to stand up to heavy weapons thats why they're in that priority level, does a minesweeper have the same armor as a destroyer??? does a corvette have the same armor as a battleship? no they dont, and they arent supposed to. Bigger ships mount bigger guns that do more damage.

 

[locarno24]

Personally, I've no problem with beam weapons.

As previously noted, they're not overpowered on a per-die basis. There might (and have been continuously) balancing issues with regards to the number of dice, range, and boresight/forward arc, but that's balancing numbers on the ship. I don't see problems with a weapon rule.

 

[Lorcan Nagle]

I'm definately in the "don't change them" camp. Beam weapons are meant to be insanely powerful, the only factions who have them in numbers are the more advnaced races, and so what if they carve smaller ships up? That's what heavy weapons do!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Beam weapons are meant to be insanely powerful, the only factions who have them in numbers are the more advanced races...

..like Drazi :wink:

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

Hull 4 ships are mostly in the Patrol & Skirmish priorities, they arent supposed to be able to stand up to heavy weapons thats why they're in that priority level, does a minesweeper have the same armor as a destroyer??? does a corvette have the same armor as a battleship? no they dont, and they arent supposed to. Bigger ships mount bigger guns that do more damage.

But is a destroyer as big or slow a target as a battleship or aircaft carrier?

 

[H]

How many destroyers do you know of with the Dodge trait ;-)

 

[Tank]

Big slow and lacking in manouverability, fine destroyers arent, but they get hit by a salvo from a battleship, they usuall get hurt very badly. And you dont see a single destroyer gunning for a battleship, they do it in squadrons and expect casualties.

Hull 4 represents a lighter ship, they tend to be quicker and more manouverable than the bigger ships. Beam weapons represent the awesome firepower of a heavy weapon.

 

[emperorpenguin]

How many destroyers do you know of with the Dodge trait ;-)

In Victory at Sea there might be destroyers with the dodge trait! And they have a higher target number than battleships but less armour and less damage obvously