Musings on plasma

[billclo]

Tony Thomas (Scoutdad), on the "A Call to Arms Star Fleet Fans" Facebook page, posited this question:

"If ACTASF was your games, "What would you do / add to help balance the presumed weakness of Plasma?
[Note I say presumed because we've not found a weakness with plasma per se, but with the way the game works. Plasma are very ineffective in a 3 to 6 Turn game (similar to most tournament settings), but if you're playing at home and don't mind going for a few hours and making a 10 to 12 turn game - you can finesse your Plasma ships to greatly outdamage most direct fire opponents. But it does take time, patience, and manuevering - something that doesn't often occur in a game designed to be quick and simple.

So again, what would you do?"

A Mr Watson put this idea forth that I thought had merit and was worth discussing:

"The problem as I see it is that plasmas used to be seeking weapons that degraded over distance in SFB. They also did a fixed amount of damage, no die rolling. A clever captain could run from it in order to degrade it but his phasers were a last resort as they (in the best circumstances) could peel very little damage off of it. ie. Plasma "S" 30 pts of damage, four PhI max roll for damage at range one would peel off 16 pts. In this game Plasmas are direct fire weapons with a randomly determined damage. Phasers remove a fixed amount of Dice from the roll. This should be reversed. Perhaps an "S" torp should do 12 pts of fixed damage in the glory zone and a phaser auto hits and peels 1d3 from the total. Four phasers would on average reduce the "S" to 4 damage. Not bad. What do you think?"

Someone else proposed phasers doing fixed damage to the torpedo.

Based upon what they proposed, how about this:

Plasmas do a fixed amount of damage, lose damage points to Energy bleed and phaser fire. Damage for the torpedo is based upon an overloaded Photon being worth 8 damage (16 in SFB).
Proposal:
Plasma-D damage: 5
Plasma-F damage: 10
Plasma-G damage: 12
Plasma-S damage: 15
Plasma-R damage:25

Energy bleed is handled as follows: Full warhead at 0-4", -3 pts at 8", -7 (total) at 12", -10 (total) at 16".

Now, as for phasers doing damage to a plasma, how about this:
A Phaser 1 or 2 in Killzone (or on the target ship) removes 2 points off the warhead. 1 if not in killzone.
A Phaser-3 in Killzone removes 1 off the warhead if in killzone, 0 otherwise.
A Phaser-4 I don't know, have to figure out.

How to handle IDF:
Escorts may use their Escort trait within 8" vs seeking weapon, or if they want to engage beyond 8", roll for IDF, perhaps with a Crew Quality Check of 7 (easier since they have better equipment for this task). Any ship making a successful IDF CCQ within phaser range may fire on the plasma using this modified damage table:
Phaser-1/2, in Killzone removes 2 warhead, removes 1 if not in killzone.
Phaser-3, in killzone (base contact with the target) removes 1 from the warhead, nothing if not in killzone.

Now this would require an escort that has a lot of phaser-3 (or Phaser-G) to stay in base contact with the ship it intends to defend. You can move the Defended ship first and them move the escort(s), or perhaps introduce an "Escort target" special action, wherein the defended ship AND escorts all move as a unified unit when activated. Eg, that flagship with an DWE both move at the same time when activated. Now I am not sure they should be allowed to fire as an unified unit when the Attack Phase comes up, or are still required to fire seperately.

 

[archon96]

see these plasma rules make sense, and a ship using all power to engines can still try to avoid it. This takes alot of the randomness out of the torpedo. I understand the over arching damage over time thought but like most our games dont last past three turns. But the downside is if you make plasma better in the short term then it will over dominate in the long. Also plasma will have a very hard time taking on a battleship with escorts.

 

[Da Boss]

Not a bad idea

Phaser III's I thought the whole point of them was as point defence?
I would just keep kill zones operating as normal for phasers.

Now this would require an escort that has a lot of phaser-3 (or Phaser-G) to stay in base contact with the ship it intends to defend. You can move the Defended ship first and them move the escort(s), or perhaps introduce an "Escort target" special action, wherein the defended ship AND escorts all move as a unified unit when activated. Eg, that flagship with an DWE both move at the same time when activated. Now I am not sure they should be allowed to fire as an unified unit when the Attack Phase comes up, or are still required to fire seperately.

Why would you need to change the activation system as is - the Escort just needs to be within 8" of the targeted ship and in arc to defend it. The moving ships together and firing toegether is a Squadron and that (in this version of ACTA) is only allowed in bigger games - where arguably the carrier groups should usually be found?

 

[billclo]

Not a bad idea

Phaser III's I thought the whole point of them was as point defence?
I would just keep kill zones operating as normal for phasers.

Now this would require an escort that has a lot of phaser-3 (or Phaser-G) to stay in base contact with the ship it intends to defend. You can move the Defended ship first and them move the escort(s), or perhaps introduce an "Escort target" special action, wherein the defended ship AND escorts all move as a unified unit when activated. Eg, that flagship with an DWE both move at the same time when activated. Now I am not sure they should be allowed to fire as an unified unit when the Attack Phase comes up, or are still required to fire seperately.

Why would you need to change the activation system as is - the Escort just needs to be within 8" of the targeted ship and in arc to defend it. The moving ships together and firing toegether is a Squadron and that (in this version of ACTA) is only allowed in bigger games - where arguably the carrier groups should usually be found?

Well that escort can be further out than base contact (2") but under the proposal, it's phaser-3 /Phaser-G fire would be out of killzone and ineffective. In the source game, phaser-3s useful range is 2 hexes at best (1" in this game). 2" was probably put in place because you can't stack ships closer than 2" normally.

 

[storeylf]

I don't like all phasers being different, keep it simple and just have them do the damage they would, i.e 1 or 2 for kill zone (2 or 4 for Ph4s). Ph3s are not all that ineffective vs plasma in FC in point blank defensive fire (about a 50% difference to a Ph1). The way your mechannics work you have already reduced all phaser Ph1, 2 and 3 effectiveness anyway.

As your numbers currently stands a Gorn cruiser comes in and dumps 50 damage at range 4, an enemy cruiser has maybe 6 1s bearing and a couple of 3s. That would make ~11 damage knocked off, leaving 39 damage plus phasers. There would still be 25 damage at range 8 plus some phasers. Given that there is very little randomness involved in that, it is pretty darn potent.

Basically in a 1 vs 1 those stats and mechanics make plasma more potent at all ranges, and very very significantly so up to range 4. In a fleet vs fleet fight the situation is even more in favor of the plasma fleet, as the IDF ships are less effective unless they are right on top of the ship they are defending. Whilst I think plasma 'feels' wrong at the moment, I haven't seen any evidence that it needs to be more powerful across the board, certainly I found the Gorns quite potent. If you make plasma stronger up close than now then you ought to make it weaker at range than currently IMO.

APE isn't that much help generally, you have to be pointing away from the shooter for that to help (making your attacks hard to get in), and still make a crew check. Pointing away will often limit the phasers you can use defensively.


BBs plus escorts - well that is 550+ points, it ought to be diffcult to deal with. Gorns can pack in 135+ pts of plasma damage using the above system for the same points. The BB and escort do not rake up that many phasers so long as you avoid the centerlines, the BB could still take 100+ damage plus another ~dozen phaser 1s, which with all the criticals is possibly a dead BB (almost certainly pretty much out of action and fighting multiple escalating crits).


Tweaking those numbers down a bit, take 3 points off the F strength, make it clearly the weaker plasma that is useless beyond range 8 even. and knock a point off the others. That makes a Gorn cruiser average 8 points less, which still makes it quite a bit more potent up close, but makes a bit less potent at long ranges in exchange.

 

[billclo]

As your numbers currently stands a Gorn cruiser comes in and dumps 50 damage at range 4, an enemy cruiser has maybe 6 1s bearing and a couple of 3s. That would make ~11 damage knocked off, leaving 39 damage plus phasers. There would still be 25 damage at range 8 plus some phasers. Given that there is very little randomness involved in that, it is pretty darn potent.

Well in SFB that Gorn Cruiser can run up into the enemy's face, and dump 100 pts of plasma, plus 4-6 phaser-1s. That equals about 115-125 pts of damage, enough to vaporize the typical Fed cruiser. So that 62 (50 pts plasma, 12 pts from 6 P-1) under the system I'm proposing, against a Fed CA for example, takes down the shield and does about 38 internals, destroying it. Which is in line with the source game.

Although there does need to be some balancing factor to counter the faster plasma reload, IMHO.

Whilst I think plasma 'feels' wrong at the moment, I haven't seen any evidence that it needs to be more powerful across the board, certainly I found the Gorns quite potent. If you make plasma stronger up close than now then you ought to make it weaker at range than currently IMO.

I can live with tweaking the energy bleed if need be.

How about this instead:

Energy bleed is originally handled as follows: Full warhead at 0-4", -3 pts at 8", -7 (total) at 12", -10 (total) at 16". This is per torpedo.

So for the typical Gorn cruiser that would have 2x "S" and 2 x "F" torps and 50 pts of plasma between 0 and 4", under the original proposal, at 8" it'd have 38 pts, at 12" 22 pts, at 16" 10 pts.

New proposal that closely mirrors the plasma charts in SFB:

So now that Gorn cruiser will do:

0-5" 50 pts
5-8" 32 pts
8-10" 14 pts
10-12" 10 pts
past 12" 0 pts


vs under the original proposal:
0-4" 50 pts
5-8" 38 pts
9-12" 22 pts
13-16" 10 pts

Which is a big difference. It makes the plasma user much shorter range than is currently the case.

I don't like all phasers being different, keep it simple and just have them do the damage they would, i.e 1 or 2 for kill zone (2 or 4 for Ph4s). Ph3s are not all that ineffective vs plasma in FC in point blank defensive fire (about a 50% difference to a Ph1).

A P-3 is definitely less effective vs plasma than a P-1, and a ship firing a P-1 and a P-3 at a plasma should not yield the same damage reduction for both types of weapon. Reducing the warhead by 2 for a P-1 and 1 for a P-3 is in line with what you were saying about P-3 effectiveness in FedCom.

Basically in a 1 vs 1 those stats and mechanics make plasma more potent at all ranges, and very very significantly so up to range 4.

Which alleviates the concern some people have had for the plasma users having no incentive to get closer to the enemy than 8".

In a fleet vs fleet fight the situation is even more in favor of the plasma fleet, as the IDF ships are less effective unless they are right on top of the ship they are defending.

Which is true to the source game in that ships need to huddle fairly closely together (sub-6") to provide mutual defense.

 

[Nerroth]

I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I no longer own SFB, and don't have a copy of the plasma torpedo charts, showing how they degrade. I am willing to amend the energy bleed to more closely replicate said plasma chart if someone can assist me.

If it helps, there is a master weapons chart for FC here, and there's a set of SFB plasma charts on the SSD for the tournament King Eagle.

The main difference is that the FC charts are not based on range, but on the impulse of impact. (While SFB has 32 impulses per turn, FC only has 8; but each of those eight impulses has four movement sub-pulses. This allows FC ships to move as far across the board as SFB ships in a turn, but with only a quarter of the firing opportunities.)


EDIT: If you thought it worth going for, there is an e23 version of the SFB Master Rulebook, which is up to date as far as 2012. It's a step up in price from the FC Reference Rulebook, it has to be said.

 

[storeylf]

Well in SFB that Gorn Cruiser can run up into the enemy's face, and dump 100 pts of plasma, plus 4-6 phaser-1s. That equals about 115-125 pts of damage, enough to vaporize the typical Fed cruiser. So that 62 (50 pts plasma, 12 pts from 6 P-1) under the system I'm proposing, against a Fed CA for example, takes down the shield and does about 38 internals, destroying it. Which is in line with the source game.

It's no where near in line with the source game. If you run up to someone in FedCom and dump 100 points of plasma you will probably lose. The other guy will turn and run and you will do no damage. He will have shot you first with his direct fire weapoons (probably gutting you) and will be back to shoot you again whilst you rearm over 3 turns. In FC you only dump all your plasma when you have the other guy tractored or he clearly has no means of escape (e.g. out of energy). Dribbling out plasma is generally the best plasma strategy in FC (and SFB from what I remember), something that never works in ACTA due to the 'threshold' nature of the game, and the fact that plasma is essentially direct fire weapon in this game.

You can't just try and replicate the damage chart from FC/SFB without accounting for the fact that plasma in ACTA is an immediate auto hit from any range, which it most definatley is not even remotely in the base games. Neither is plasma a 2 turn armer in the base games. If you do just represent the damage chart then you need mechanisms for avoiding it (beyond phasers) just as it would be avoided in the source systems

I am somewhat handicapped by the fact that I no longer own SFB, and don't have a copy of the plasma torpedo charts, showing how they degrade. I am willing to amend the energy bleed to more closely replicate said plasma chart if someone can assist me.

A P-3 is definitely less effective vs plasma than a P-1, and a ship firing a P-1 and a P-3 at a plasma should not yield the same damage reduction for both types of weapon. Reducing the warhead by 2 for a P-1 and 1 for a P-3 is in line with what you were saying about P-3 effectiveness in FedCom.

You are getting to hung up on the precise numbers in the other games. It's getting the over all 'feel' about right that we should concentrate on.

The key points are that Pl-F is ubiquitous, but very short range (half that of an R), and degrades rapidly. It's not necessary to exactly have half the range in ACTA, but it ought to be of no use pretty early. Again bear in mind that the enmy can't run it out, so whilst an F is relativley easily avoided in FC there is no such chance in here, therefore having it become useless at short range is appropriate.

Yes a Phaser 3 is less effective, but when it comes to defensive fire it's not as bad as you are implying with your numbers, a lot of the time the Ph1 and Ph3 will do the same damage to the plasma (4 pts, halved to 2) during defensive fire. The difference isn't worth introducing an extra piddly rule over. Bear in mind without the ability to outrun plasma or weasal them etc then phasers need to be more effective to make up, making the 'defensive' phaser 3 more effective can be part of that balancing act.

Which is true to the source game in that ships need to huddle fairly closely together (sub-6") to provide mutual defense.

Not particrlarly, in FC the seekers will travel across the map, a ship can run from plamsa whilst others shoot it as it goes past and not be anywhere near that close to the target. You clump together for concentraton of firepower, not so much mutual defense.

 

[billclo]

Okay, clearly we're not going to agree, and I've said my piece, so I'll try to let the powers that be decide what to do.

Have you a specific proposal to put forth to adjust plasmas?

 

[Nerroth]

Well in SFB that Gorn Cruiser can run up into the enemy's face, and dump 100 pts of plasma, plus 4-6 phaser-1s. That equals about 115-125 pts of damage, enough to vaporize the typical Fed cruiser. So that 62 (50 pts plasma, 12 pts from 6 P-1) under the system I'm proposing, against a Fed CA for example, takes down the shield and does about 38 internals, destroying it. Which is in line with the source game.

It's no where near in line with the source game. If you run up to someone in FedCom and dump 100 points of plasma you will probably lose. The other guy will turn and run and you will do no damage. He will have shot you first with his direct fire weapoons (probably gutting you) and will be back to shoot you again whilst you rearm over 3 turns. In FC you only dump all your plasma when you have the other guy tractored or he clearly has no means of escape (e.g. out of energy). Dribbling out plasma is the generally the best plasma strategy in FC (and SFB from what I remember), something that never works in ACTA due to the 'threshold' nature of the game, and the fact that plasma is essentially direct fire weapon in this game.

You can't just try and replicate the damage from FC/SFB without accounting for the fact that plasma in ACTA is an immediate auto hit from any range, which it most definatley is not even remotely in the base games. Neither is plasma a 2 turn armer in the base games.

I think you both have a point, depending on which source game is being referred to. (Or rather, which version of Big Plasma is more desirable a reference.)

In SFB, a target ship has acceleration limits which make it harder to up and run away from incoming plasma, while the firing ship can get that plasma out of the tubes as soon as it's in its optimal launching position. But, the target also has things like wild weasels to act as plasma defences, as well as more of an ability to "brick" a facing shield. But, the plasma-chucker has things like pseudoes, envelopers, and other options to help bluff the target into making the wrong decision.

In FC, the plasma ship has a tougher time lining up their movement sub-pulses in order to optimise a launch, plus the target can run away as fast as they like, and they always know the torpedo will be "real" (no pseudoes, and no double-blind guessing game). While both attacker and defender has a reduced set of options to chuck into a plasma exchange, it has been argued that the balance of probabilities has shifted towards the defender in FC relative to SFB.

Neither of those dynamics are going to work as-is in ACtA:SF, but it is possible that whatever the balance between plasma attack and anti-plasma defence ends up being here, that it may not directly equate to either FC or SFB. (I can't say how plasma works in Starmada, so apologies there.)

 

[storeylf]

Have you a specific proposal to put forth to adjust plasmas?

I think I was the one who started the thread with a proposal.

There are other things I have been mulling over as well.

I am also not arguing against the basic mechanisms you noted, fixing the plasma damage is not an unreasonable proposal. Whilst I haven't played in quite a few months, I did play Gorn a lot and I certainly didn't find that they struggled in a great way, plasma I have noted in this and other threads is actually pretty potent. It just 'feels' wrong.

 

[scoutdad]

I think Lee has nailed the crux of the issue.

Plasma (as is) is plenty potent, but it doesn't necessarily feel like an SFU plasma torpedo launch.
Maybe that's because of the way plasma is launched and hits immedaitely... excepting of course, for defensive fire.

Several proposals have been presented but almost all of them go againsthte ACTASF precept of KISS. I do not want to trade a system that works (*) for a complicated, note-taking system that doesn't necessarily reflect the overall results of Plasma, but does "feel" right.

(*) A system that works... meaning that given a series of games between players of approximately equal skill, the end results will approximately mirror the results expected from a similar number of games of Federaiton Commander between the sametwo players of approximately equal skill.

 

[billclo]

Tony, have you been able to glean anything useful from all of this discussion that might be of use in whatever ultimately is submitted to Matt for consideration? Or are all of us barking up the wrong tree? :mrgreen:

 

[storeylf]

One thing I was mulling over was some way of avoiding plasma damage without using phasers, to represent to some extent that the skillful captain has manouvered his ship in such a way as to lengthen the time the plasma took to hit, maybe he swerved and bought himself a few seconds or suddenly came to a stop rather than rapidly charging in to it. The faster than 12" rule vs seekers can represent totally outrunning it, but this would represents partially running it down (or not just charging at it) whilst still attacking.

I was thinking of a crew check for this. Precisely how I am not sure. Say for example a crew check of 7+ avoids 1AD per torp. A Gorn cruiser therefore may well lose 4AD per attack. If he launches 12AD and the ship evades with a 7+ he hits with 8AD. Smaller torps may be easier to handle as 1 AD is half of an pl-F, whilst bigger torps are still nasty.

The main difference is that a 2nd Gorn cruiser will currently handily finish off the ship as there are no phasers left, and there is no way of representing the ability of ships to rundown/ignore plasma, which is wrong 'feel' wise. With a crew check the target still has some plasma defense against subsequent attacks, especially against some extra Fs lobbed out casually.

Clearly that would reduce the overall effectiveness of plasma, especially fleet fights, as all ships then have potential defense all the time. Therefore you would modify upwards the way the damage works, and in a way that makes it nastier up close hopefully. Downgrading phasers is an obvious way of helping balancing out, say 2 phasers needed to kill 1AD. You could maybe make the crew check a 9+ but reduce it by 1 per 4" range. So 9+ at 0-4; 8+ at 4-8; 7+ at 8-12. That would give an incentive for targets to keep the range open to have the 'reaction' time.

If you did both of them then the Gorn cruiser will do 9AD after 6-7 phasers, rather than 5-6AD. But he may find his target has dodged some of the sting, bringing it back down to 5AD if he has a good crew who can react fast enough, which is harder if you are on top of him.

You could add that sort of thing with fixed plasma damage as well.

Anyway, like I say not really thought that through properly, just something I was pondering.

 

[Gorgo]

I think that an excellent option would be to change nothing about plasma except to reduce the chances of hitting with defensive phaser fire.

Consider removing the acc mod from all phaser fire against plasma. This reduces the effectiveness of the phasers and still keeps the game quick. A 50/50 chance with Ph1's means that more plasma gets through and gattlings are now still excellent but not jaw dropping.

Simple and easy to play test.

Personally, I'm still wrapping my mind around Gorns and have not formed an opinion one way or the other about defensive fire.
I do however find it offensive when an alpha strike which I have worked hard to set-up from my BC gets stopped by a Fed CC (a die gets through, the other "F" is usually out of arc) and his return has an excellent chance of blasting through my shields and doing a critical. The following rounds can be brutal as I attempt to reload and my phasers get eaten by never ending drone fire.


Cheers

 

[Iain McGhee]

One thing I was mulling over was some way of avoiding plasma damage without using phasers, to represent to some extent that the skillful captain has manouvered his ship in such a way as to lengthen the time the plasma took to hit, maybe he swerved and bought himself a few seconds or suddenly came to a stop rather than rapidly charging in to it. The faster than 12" rule vs seekers can represent totally outrunning it, but this would represents partially running it down (or not just charging at it) whilst still attacking.

Already in the game The "Take Evasive Action" special action lets you make opposed CQ checks in an attempt to avoid attacks from seeking weapons systems, but limits your speed to represent the bobbing and weaving as you approach.

 

[storeylf]

Aye, but it doesn't base on range in anyway, and it is again an all or nothing, like the moving fast defense. I was looking for something that isn't all or nothing, nor requiring a special action. A way of mitigating some of the damage in a way that might allow tweaking other aspects of plasma to make it feel more appropriate, IMHO of course.

However, on that point, is evasive action take a crew check of 8+ to be evasive and then you may make opposed rolls, or do you only take the 8+ for dodging direct fire. I think you have to make the 8+ when you nomiate your ship to see if the action was succesful, and if not you cannot then try dodging plasma, that makes it an unlikely defense.

 

[billclo]

I think that an excellent option would be to change nothing about plasma except to reduce the chances of hitting with defensive phaser fire.

Consider removing the acc mod from all phaser fire against plasma. This reduces the effectiveness of the phasers and still keeps the game quick. A 50/50 chance with Ph1's means that more plasma gets through and gattlings are now still excellent but not jaw dropping.

Hmm... that's interesting. One potential issue is that would that loss of accurate bonus apply to drones as well? If not, why not? If it does, the drone hit rate just went up drastically as well.

As others have said, any changes we make here vs plasma need to be considered in the context of other seeking weapons as well. A ship with 6 phaser-1 can normally stop 5 drones or 5 dice of plasma. Losing the accurate bonus = 3 drones stopped or 3 dice of plasma stopped. So the target is hit by 3 dice instead of 1. Big difference.

But it is worth looking at.

I did tinker with the idea of losing X warhead strength per inch of travel over 4" and noting the warhead strengths at 0-8", 8-12", and 12-16", but the results with various numbers were not that satisfying. While the warhead dropoff was rather linear vs large steps at over 8 to 12" and over 12 to 16" with the standard dice method (used average of 3.5pts per die). The best match was lose 1 pt damage per inch traveled over 4, but even then, the standard method was superior at all ranges except 4" and under.

I can post the numbers if anyone is interested, but I am not hopeful that this tangent will be useful.

 

[nekomata fuyu]

The other problem with a solution such as just dropping Accurate from anti-plasma fire is that it can easily make plasma too overwhelming. Sure, a single ship may well gain a better hope of being able to burn through defensive fire, but everything after that hits at full strength.

Basically, with ACTASF plasma, the way to look at it is the the first X number of ships will seem underpowered when firing plasma on a target, as all the plasma gets shot down. Anything after that will appear overpowered, as there is nothing left to shoot them down. The whole balance issue rests with how big a number X should be, and I suspect that this number will vary greatly with factors such as the size of the battle.

Thinking about the issue of ACTASF treating plasma as an immediate hit weapon, and how this doesn't allow for outrunning it in the same way as SFB:
The range issue is already covered by the energy drain rule.
Keeping track of how fast the target ship is moving any more than we already do now will probably be too much recordkeeping (ships moving over 12" already gain some protection anyway).
The third factor I can see in outrunning a seeking weapon is the direction the target ship is moving in. If the target is moving towards you, it is effectively closing the range, whilst a target moving away is effectively extending the range. Maybe it's possible to represent this in a similar way to energy drain: -1 AD when shooting into a target's side arc, and -2 AD when shooting into a target's rear arc. (These modifiers should not apply vs stationary targets.) Of course any such changes would require a significant rebalance of the current ships.

 

[Finlos]

I think that an excellent option would be to change nothing about plasma except to reduce the chances of hitting with defensive phaser fire.

Consider removing the acc mod from all phaser fire against plasma. This reduces the effectiveness of the phasers and still keeps the game quick. A 50/50 chance with Ph1's means that more plasma gets through and gattlings are now still excellent but not jaw dropping.

Hmm... that's interesting. One potential issue is that would that loss of accurate bonus apply to drones as well? If not, why not? If it does, the drone hit rate just went up drastically as well.

As others have said, any changes we make here vs plasma need to be considered in the context of other seeking weapons as well. A ship with 6 phaser-1 can normally stop 5 drones or 5 dice of plasma. Losing the accurate bonus = 3 drones stopped or 3 dice of plasma stopped. So the target is hit by 3 dice instead of 1. Big difference.

But it is worth looking at.

Interesting. I proposed the -exact- same fix on the Facebook ACTA page hosted by Scoutdad (Sunday night) but was ignored.