Musings on plasma
- Thread starter storeylf
- Start date
Finlos said:billclo said:Gorgo said:
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.
I just went back and yes, your suggestion was there. Somehow I missed it entirely. My bad.
Da Boss said:
Well I think there is room for tinkering with plasma without affecting drones.
If we use the idea of a P-1/2 taking off 2 damage in killzone, 1 otherwise, and a P-3 taking off 1 in killzone, 0 otherwise, then you can still shoot down drones attacking another ship as long as you in are in range 18 for P-1, range 12 for P-2. Which is no real change from the old way of doing it. It's the P-3 that loses effectiveness vs drones in that you have to be within 2" to use a P-3 for IDF, not 6". Remember, even one hit takes out a drone, so 2 pts from being in killzone is irrelevant for shooting at drones.
Also, the reduced effect of P-3, particularly for escorts, may mean that those abundant drones get used on incoming drones more often instead of being used for attack.
But that 2 pts in killzone might become relevant if we ever see harder to kill advanced drones or something.
Believe me, I am okay with Drones the way they are, and do not want them to become even more effective.
Interesting idea. Though if we are to stick with the current dice system for warhead instead of fixed damage like I proposed, how about we use -3 damage from the side, and -6 from the rear taken off whatever the dice you rolled yields. Reducing by 1AD seems reasonable, but -2AD just kills Plas-F. Now if we used -1AD or -2AD for shots taken over 4", then this isn't quite as bad.
How about this to resolve what storyelf and nekomata fuyu were saying:
Assume that Phaser-1/2 fired in killzone remove 2 damage from the torpedo, 1 not in killzone. Phaser-3 removes 1 in killzone, 0 not in killzone. KEEP the idea that a torpedo does X dice damage, but remove the phaser damage after the torpedo damage is rolled out.
Eg, a plasma-S fired at 8" range is hit by 2 Phaser-1 in killzone on the way to the target. Roll 4 dice for the torpedo's damage, then deduct 4 points from the torpedo damage.
Now...
Step 1) If plasma is fired from within 6" of the target, proceed to step 2. If a ship is fired upon by plasma from over 6", the player running that ship may opt to make an opposed crew quality check. This option may not be chosen if the ship firing plasma is in the front arc of the target ship. If it passes the check, the damage dealt by the incoming plasmas is reduced by 5 points per torpedo (deducted after the damage dice are rolled). This represents efforts to dodge and lengthen the plasma's flight time. If it fails the check, proceed to step 2.
Step 2) Attacks launched at range 0-4" are resolved as normal. If the target is over 4" away, use this procedure: When resolving the plasma hit, if the target is hit in the front arc, damage is not modified. If the target is hit in the Port or Starboard arc, reduce the damage from the torpedo by 3 points, representing slightly longer flight time to impact the target. If the target is hit in the Aft arc, reduce the damage taken by 6 points due to much longer plasma flight time. These reductions are taken off the damage from the torpedo after the damage dice are rolled. Repeat the procedure for each torpedo used.
If the target moved 6" or less this turn, then the modifiers for hitting it in either the Port/Starboard or Aft arc do not apply, nor can the target ship make the opposed crew check to dodge the torpedo.
I would be open to modifying the damage reductions due to evasion or which arc of the target is hit. Playtesting might also show that it would be a good idea to add a die damage to each torpedo to help balance things.
easiest way to resolve this issue.
Fire plasma at target
Roll AD to determine how much damage is available
remove 1 point of damage for every 4 inches away from target
each phaser shot will remove 2points of damage if in killzone, or 1 point for outside of KZ
plasma hits with what left.
Example: I fire a plasma R at Target CA 10 inches away. I roll 7AD and get a total of 25 points of damage. The distance is 10 so i remove 2 points for energy bleed leaving 23points for damage. The CA fires 4 PH1 and 1PH3 all in KZ so i remove 10 points leaving 13 points. The neighboring escort fires 2 PH1 out of KZ remove two points leaving me with 11points striking the CA.
We can adjust energy bleed if necessary but this is pretty simple and still makes a plasma r feel like a plasma r. Under the current system my Rtype would probably never have done any damage.
Fire plasma at target
Roll AD to determine how much damage is available
remove 1 point of damage for every 4 inches away from target
each phaser shot will remove 2points of damage if in killzone, or 1 point for outside of KZ
plasma hits with what left.
Example: I fire a plasma R at Target CA 10 inches away. I roll 7AD and get a total of 25 points of damage. The distance is 10 so i remove 2 points for energy bleed leaving 23points for damage. The CA fires 4 PH1 and 1PH3 all in KZ so i remove 10 points leaving 13 points. The neighboring escort fires 2 PH1 out of KZ remove two points leaving me with 11points striking the CA.
We can adjust energy bleed if necessary but this is pretty simple and still makes a plasma r feel like a plasma r. Under the current system my Rtype would probably never have done any damage.
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
Like Archon96's fix, and don't think it effects the 'KISS Principle' too much (Fed Drone and ADD require some math to use, and most people (well the ones i play with) use individual 'defensive' fire by bank - you declare a bank defensive, then fire Phasers as requires through turn).
Whilst i'd like fixed damage (makes strikes easier to plan), think we need to be careful as Drones 'might/would' need fixed damage too - 6pts if worked at half damage from SFB/FC. I actually prefer the D6 option.
As far as arc, surely the D6 roll 'could' be used in this regard (it's still possible to roll 7 damage (before defensive fire and bleed) on an R type. That said, it would give a 'minus' effect tactically to plasma, which should benefit quite well if these changes happen.
And yes, i play GORN
Whilst i'd like fixed damage (makes strikes easier to plan), think we need to be careful as Drones 'might/would' need fixed damage too - 6pts if worked at half damage from SFB/FC. I actually prefer the D6 option.
As far as arc, surely the D6 roll 'could' be used in this regard (it's still possible to roll 7 damage (before defensive fire and bleed) on an R type. That said, it would give a 'minus' effect tactically to plasma, which should benefit quite well if these changes happen.
And yes, i play GORN
Keeper I like the randomness on the plasma damage, helps keep the seeker feel at the same time giving us a reason for not having to roll for a hit. If we went to fixed damage then we should have to roll to hit the target, then we might as well have rolled a photon. I think im going to play this way with my son next time to see how it goes. Im also not opposed to plasma being bigger but needing the two turns to reload like in FC. This would give them the wow factor in short games and even out the damage in longer games. Most of the time I only get to reload maybe 1 or 2 ships because the special actions are used to keep my alive.
That's an absolutely massive buff to plasma all round. The energy bleed is almost meaningless, even Plasma F does about half damage at range 16. A plama R loses hardly any damage at max range (equalivalent to ~1AD), which is hardly representative of the source systems. Phasers lose not far off half their effectiveness, and a lot more from IDF ships.
A Gorn cruiser in your example against those phasers and IDF goes from doing 3.5 average damage to average 22 damage, at range 10. A good roll by that Gorn could be doing well in excess of 30 damage, at a pretty good range for plasma and in the face of some IDF! A 2nd Gorn with no phasers left to deal with has also got hardly any energy bleed either, can hammer the cruiser from max range 16 with another 26 average damage (as opposed to 7 currently). In fact there may seldom be much reason to ever bother going any closer than max range, hardly the sort of way plasma might be expected to be played in the SFU.
Do you actually think plasma is so weak at the moment, and needs that sort all round buff? What you are proposing makes photons look utterly wimpy.
I'm not sure about the Plasma R comment. If you are looking at a single plasma in isolation then at the moment it goes from 7AD base to 3AD at max range. That is pretty good, and better than the base games. Against defensive fire it gets shot down, but so does a Plasma R that is near the end of its life in the base games.
A Gorn cruiser in your example against those phasers and IDF goes from doing 3.5 average damage to average 22 damage, at range 10. A good roll by that Gorn could be doing well in excess of 30 damage, at a pretty good range for plasma and in the face of some IDF! A 2nd Gorn with no phasers left to deal with has also got hardly any energy bleed either, can hammer the cruiser from max range 16 with another 26 average damage (as opposed to 7 currently). In fact there may seldom be much reason to ever bother going any closer than max range, hardly the sort of way plasma might be expected to be played in the SFU.
Do you actually think plasma is so weak at the moment, and needs that sort all round buff? What you are proposing makes photons look utterly wimpy.
I'm not sure about the Plasma R comment. If you are looking at a single plasma in isolation then at the moment it goes from 7AD base to 3AD at max range. That is pretty good, and better than the base games. Against defensive fire it gets shot down, but so does a Plasma R that is near the end of its life in the base games.
The problem come from having to stack ships against a single target just to have effect. And even then I have to poor enough into it to strip away shields before getting a single chance at criting the opposing ship. Were the photon only takes getting one passed shields to ruin youre day. Ive had matches against my son were im almost full on shields and hess gotten three torps past and sent me into cripple. I just dont think plasma is as scary or effective anymore with escorts. Maybe my energy bleed isnt high enough but ive made phasers more effective for the ship defending it self by allowing the KZ rule to work in defensive fire. Also if plasma is buffed im not opposed to a longer reload time. And with the heavy phaser boats that the feds already use escorts are just going to make seeking weapons less and less viable.
Actually you haven't, you have made them weaker. At he moment a phaser hit takes off 1AD, or an average 3.5 (not that we ever see what that 1AD would have rolled). Your proposal means defensive fire takes off 2 pts, that is only 57% as effective as before, and IDF takes a bigger hit.
It may be that plasma from a single ship doesn't achive much damage in 1 volley, but it often didn't in FedCom either. Do I think there needs to be some buff that makes smaller plasma amounts scary, yes! But that should try to reflect the source material, which to me, happens when you are more or less on top of someone. I'd like to see smaller plasma ships (and ISC when they arrive with their lower plasma loads) still have that 'I don't want to get to close' feel, and giving plasma a close range buff could achieve that.
That was the purpose of my OP, it buffed plasma up to 4" but made it slightly weaker beyond that to try and balance it out.
Plus like it or not this is a fleet game, using multiple ships to kill stuff is just the way the system is works. Changing plasma to allow a single ship to be so powerful at ranges that are hard to avoid is just going to be game breaking.
Sure photons can leak, but they are pretty darn random, you might leak, and if you leak you might get a crit.
Two cruisers firing all photons (8) average only a bit more than 1/2 a critical, and only 16 damage (and thats at range 7.5 or less). The chance of that really ruining some ones day is quite remote. It happens, but it also happens that it does nothing that shield boost won't handle.
Given your stats, two Gorn cruisers firing all plasma at maximum range, where the target takes out 10 points with phasers will still average 42 damage, that is 260% more damage than the photons, AND it used up the targets phasers AND against most cruisers it will be doing 12-18 internals, AND it also averages 2-3 criticals, which is 400-600% more than the photons, AND it can do that from an inch further away. There is some randomness as per photons, maybe you roll badly and 'just' blow away the shields, maybe you roll well and actually kill the ship (only need about 6 to 8 extra damage for some cruisers, which even crits might provide).
At range 7.5, i.e. the same half range as photons, you average 28 damage on the first cruiser (against 10 pts of phaser damage) and 38 from the second, 66 damage!! That will probably toast even heavy battle cruisers even though they probably have a bit of extra phaser defense
Like I say the photons are utterly wimpy next to that original proposal of yours.
ive got no problem increasing the energy bleed to what i proposed. Im not proposing that plasma be over powering. but to lose an entire 1-6 of damage to only 1point of damage done is a bit of an unfair exchange. That why i like the idea of prerolling the damage first. I really dont care how damaging the energy bleed is, because ill just change my tactic to match. But being within 4 inchs of my target and firing 16ad and seeing no damage caused is a bit ridiculous.
archon96 said:
16 AD with no damage isn't unreasonable if the target hasn't been fired at and it and some escorts and IDF ships are present. It is unreasonable only if a second or third ship get skunked and even then, a defending fleet knocking down 32 AD of plasma is about to roll over and play dead for anything else shooting at them.
I am still not convinced that there is a problem here that requires a major rework of Plasma.
Yeah it feels different than FC or SFB but in those game all of your Plasma Torpedoes are on the Board constantly closing with thier targets and in many case hit all at once. I think the I go you go is throwing you off here.
Also forcing anyone closer than 8" in ACTA is just plain wrong. FC and SFB do not have a 4 hex Ship Explosion Radius like ACTA does. IF you are trying to force people closer all your doing is making them eat ship explosion damage.
Instead of dropping Accuracy Bonus just impose the +1(or -1 whatever) penalty on Defesive Fire because Plasam is 33% faster than speed 24 drones and a much smaller target to hit probably. A near miss on a drone would collapse its mechanicly generated warp bubble. Where as Plasma being almost pure energy is probably notaffected as badly by near misses. And lets see where that get us first.
Yeah it feels different than FC or SFB but in those game all of your Plasma Torpedoes are on the Board constantly closing with thier targets and in many case hit all at once. I think the I go you go is throwing you off here.
Also forcing anyone closer than 8" in ACTA is just plain wrong. FC and SFB do not have a 4 hex Ship Explosion Radius like ACTA does. IF you are trying to force people closer all your doing is making them eat ship explosion damage.
Instead of dropping Accuracy Bonus just impose the +1(or -1 whatever) penalty on Defesive Fire because Plasam is 33% faster than speed 24 drones and a much smaller target to hit probably. A near miss on a drone would collapse its mechanicly generated warp bubble. Where as Plasma being almost pure energy is probably notaffected as badly by near misses. And lets see where that get us first.
archon96 said:
Not really. In a fleet action, any fleet that supresses 16-32AD of plasma early in a turn has probably exhausted at least 3-4 ships worth of defensive fire to stop the first one or two plasma salvos. From ship three onwards, the plasma is going in unopposed and the return fire from the enemy is greatly diminished as those phasers are unavailable having been used to knock down the plasma.
In our last game, two War Eagle 'R' class torps generated minor shield damage on a Kzinti CM but the other CM and a nearby OCL on IDF used essentially every available weapon on defensive support. The follow on King Eagle gutted the CM while all the Kzinti could do in return was some body and fender damage on a War Eagle but not enough to stop it cloaking the next turn.
If defensive fire is too high to strip, then bolt the things. OK shorter range, but energy bleed pushes you in there anyway. You cannot defend against a bolt with phasers, .
Maybe put some Ds and Fs in there to strip defensive fire and force the hard decisions 'do I fire 3 phasers against that F or risk an AD on the shields' and send the big boys bolting in.
It is designed for precisely this situation. You cannot examine plasma and defensive fire balance without taking the bolt into account. You may still decide there's some work needed after consideration that but it has to be included in the mix.
Maybe put some Ds and Fs in there to strip defensive fire and force the hard decisions 'do I fire 3 phasers against that F or risk an AD on the shields' and send the big boys bolting in.
It is designed for precisely this situation. You cannot examine plasma and defensive fire balance without taking the bolt into account. You may still decide there's some work needed after consideration that but it has to be included in the mix.
Keeper Nilbog
Mongoose
If the system makes you bolt plasma to get an effect, then it's not really working is it :?: . How often under the core games do you bolt (and ActA is different from the core systems in it's mechanics - so much so that i've move to ActA as base games over FC - i prefer fleets).
From my point of view (and Gorn are my primary Fleet of choice, so that does (however much i don't want it too) colour my views - i want an equal playing field), Plasma does work in it's damage effect (though drones are 1AD 18" range torps without energy bleed - you do get my options to kill them though), it's just phaser's are too effective vs the storyelf's comment on current damage is correct, but to get an average late strength S type, 4AD is not representative (launcher at close range, damage is around 16-20pts FC (4AD would avaerage 3.5x4 = 14), Phasers would kill on average 2pts each (possibly 3 for a Ph-1), all fired at point blank (1-2hex), so 4 phasers CANNOT stop an S type - average damage would be 2pts to shield. Nothing really powerful about that, but it does damage. - and i'm used to a HDD (7AD plasma - average damage when launched around 50pts (20+20+30, with some lost for travel) being stopped dead by a single ship of CC level by phasers.
The strange thing to me is that i actually think the current rules model plasma quite well (maybe a boost of an AD for each torp - one of the reasons the close range 'bonus' option sounded good), i just think that phasers are TOO effective against them - a PH-G (4xPH-3, which should do a maxium of 8pts to a running torp (4pts each, halved vs plasma) will upset an F and annoy a G/S thats been running, but in ActA will KILL IT DEAD (on average). It's a fleet game, but plasma is not the 'open range and snipe' defense (gods knows that number of times in games of FC i've fired F's to sheppard ships into killing lane's, as i know they won't hit, but the enemy will react).
I play mainly Gorn vs Romulan at present - works great, but the intro of Fed vs Romulan showed how effective Phaser 'Boats' are against these (almost all Fed cruisers can get 6 phasers on a arc), and they then have Photon's and drones (and generally boosted ships as they don't loss more than 2-4AD to torps (my rollings not great) against an extra 2die shield strength. Not really a good representation of the core systems (but does work - slightly - in ActA)
From my point of view (and Gorn are my primary Fleet of choice, so that does (however much i don't want it too) colour my views - i want an equal playing field), Plasma does work in it's damage effect (though drones are 1AD 18" range torps without energy bleed - you do get my options to kill them though), it's just phaser's are too effective vs the storyelf's comment on current damage is correct, but to get an average late strength S type, 4AD is not representative (launcher at close range, damage is around 16-20pts FC (4AD would avaerage 3.5x4 = 14), Phasers would kill on average 2pts each (possibly 3 for a Ph-1), all fired at point blank (1-2hex), so 4 phasers CANNOT stop an S type - average damage would be 2pts to shield. Nothing really powerful about that, but it does damage. - and i'm used to a HDD (7AD plasma - average damage when launched around 50pts (20+20+30, with some lost for travel) being stopped dead by a single ship of CC level by phasers.
The strange thing to me is that i actually think the current rules model plasma quite well (maybe a boost of an AD for each torp - one of the reasons the close range 'bonus' option sounded good), i just think that phasers are TOO effective against them - a PH-G (4xPH-3, which should do a maxium of 8pts to a running torp (4pts each, halved vs plasma) will upset an F and annoy a G/S thats been running, but in ActA will KILL IT DEAD (on average). It's a fleet game, but plasma is not the 'open range and snipe' defense (gods knows that number of times in games of FC i've fired F's to sheppard ships into killing lane's, as i know they won't hit, but the enemy will react).
I play mainly Gorn vs Romulan at present - works great, but the intro of Fed vs Romulan showed how effective Phaser 'Boats' are against these (almost all Fed cruisers can get 6 phasers on a arc), and they then have Photon's and drones (and generally boosted ships as they don't loss more than 2-4AD to torps (my rollings not great) against an extra 2die shield strength. Not really a good representation of the core systems (but does work - slightly - in ActA)
Is part of the concern replicating SFB/FC within the ACTA context or should ACTA:SF stand generally alone, using the basic veneer of the SFU but not particularly concerned as to whether the plasma/defense (or the drone/defense or anything else) has any linear relationship to FC outcomes or process as long as the games and game system are balanced?
Does it really matter if ship x shooting at ship y in FC will average 10 points of damage in FC whereas the equivalent in ACTA might be 8 as long as the ACTA interactions work? I've seen this more with drones than plasma however the issue is similar.
Does it really matter if ship x shooting at ship y in FC will average 10 points of damage in FC whereas the equivalent in ACTA might be 8 as long as the ACTA interactions work? I've seen this more with drones than plasma however the issue is similar.
