New stealth suggestion

[Right Hand of God]

what about making it a dice for every weapon system that is trying to target the ship. ok so it's similar to spliting AD to target as many ships as possible but some ship[s out there have a lot of weapon systems, if they could all roll to see the same target you would remove the single dice roll problem. The question then is do you up stealth values so the odds remain the same

 

[Burger]

Yeah rolling stealth on a per-weapon per-target basis would be good too.
Keeps all stats the same, just reduces standard deviation.

 

[H]

Yeah rolling stealth on a per-weapon per-target basis would be good too.
Keeps all stats the same, just reduces standard deviation.

this would mean My Bintak missing 6 stealth rolls instead of just one ;-)

 

[Triggy]

what about making it a dice for every weapon system that is trying to target the ship. ok so it's similar to spliting AD to target as many ships as possible but some ship[s out there have a lot of weapon systems, if they could all roll to see the same target you would remove the single dice roll problem. The question then is do you up stealth values so the odds remain the same

That would possibly be...better, maybe?

 

[katadder]

the minbo ships would need toughening up though as they would be hit alot more. also whilst thats good for narn and EA its not so good/balanced for races with only 1 weapons sometimes 2 to fire.

 

[Burger]

the minbo ships would need toughening up though as they would be hit alot more. also whilst thats good for narn and EA its not so good/balanced for races with only 1 weapons sometimes 2 to fire.

No, the stats stay exactly the same. They would get hit more, but also missed more - tthe first weapon passing its stealth doesn't mean the 2nd and 3rd are going to pass.

True it doesn't help races with 1 weapon but it doesn't hinder them either.

 

[Drahazar]

[/quote]No, the stats stay exactly the same. They would get hit more, but also missed more - tthe first weapon passing its stealth doesn't mean the 2nd and 3rd are going to pass.

True it doesn't help races with 1 weapon but it doesn't hinder them either

Exactly I agree. and normally the ones that have only one weapon that one weapon could knock out a minbari ship pretty fast or damage it really bad. like vorlons or shadows. when they hit it hurts a lot and they could effectively take a sharlin out in one turn if they get lots of good rolls.

 

[katadder]

ok they might not get by as many weapons in one salvo but i would say they get hit more often. a warlock firing its missiles, railgun and beam needing 5+ to see a sharlin would on average get one weapon per turn under this.
under current rules hes likely to get them all 1 in 3 turns. now if its the 1st turn you lose out. but 2nd or 3rd you have had the chance to fire a couple of times without being shot and so works out better for minbos.

rolling once per weapon like i said is more effective over all as you can reduce minbari firepower on a more regular basis, therefore they would need toughening up as they really are quite fragile currently (usually damage of a ship one LP lower with 33% thresholds).

 

[Burger]

ok they might not get by as many weapons in one salvo but i would say they get hit more often. a warlock firing its missiles, railgun and beam needing 5+ to see a sharlin would on average get one weapon per turn under this.
under current rules hes likely to get them all 1 in 3 turns. now if its the 1st turn you lose out. but 2nd or 3rd you have had the chance to fire a couple of times without being shot and so works out better for minbos.

rolling once per weapon like i said is more effective over all as you can reduce minbari firepower on a more regular basis, therefore they would need toughening up as they really are quite fragile currently (usually damage of a ship one LP lower with 33% thresholds).

Seriously dude, just don't even talk about statistics any more, it really isn't your strong point. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, your weakness is statistics. As Hash pointed out a while back you go with your "gut feeling" and I go with maths. Neither is bad or wrong, but your statistical arguements are always just plain incorrect.

Existing rules... you have a 1 in 3 chance of passing your 5+ stealth check. Therefore:
Weapon number 1 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 2 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 3 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.

Rolling per weapon:
Weapon number 1 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 2 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 3 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.

It's the same.
Standard deviation, however, is lower when you're rolling per weapon.

I won't argue with your gut feeling, if you don't argue with my maths

 

[katadder]

not arguing with your maths, although your examples were the same thing whereas currently it should be 1/3 per turn rather than per weapon under current rules.

I know statistically they will get the same number of weapons fire, think i even said that.
however chances are with 3 weapons you will get at least one firnig per turn on average right?
whereas the current rules on average you will break stealth 1 in three turns to fire all weapons.
statistically the same.
however if your 1/3 to break stealth on current rules comes up turn 3 then the sharlin has gone 2 turns totally unmolested.
on per weapon, average of 1 weapon 1st turn, what if that weapon takes a trait and its stealth?

with per weapon in my example 1st turn you have 3 chances to break stealth even if each break is only one weapon, so even statistically you are likely to fire and cause damage. with current rules you have one chance to break stealth with the ship in the 1st turn.

over 3 turns the average under current rules is fire all weapons once as you get 3 stealth checks.
with per weapon you have had 9 stealth checks in the same amount of time, which is still 3 weapons on average but like i have said before likely to be a weapon per turn.
3 checks per turn versus 1 is in favour of the per weapon rules of getting some firing, some damage and possible game effecting crits.

and this would make the current minbari even more fragile in game turns.

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Rolling per weapon makes no sense at all from anything but a mathematical viewpoint. A ship only one has one targetting system; every weapon on the ship is tied to this system. If the stealth systems on the target fool the targetting array, it's been fooled. End of. If they don't fool it, the ship fires its weapons. End of.

 

[Burger]

however chances are with 3 weapons you will get at least one firnig per turn on average right? whereas the current rules on average you will break stealth 1 in three turns to fire all weapons.
statistically the same.

Right.

however if your 1/3 to break stealth on current rules comes up turn 3 then the sharlin has gone 2 turns totally unmolested.
on per weapon, average of 1 weapon 1st turn, what if that weapon takes a trait and its stealth?

with per weapon in my example 1st turn you have 3 chances to break stealth even if each break is only one weapon, so even statistically you are likely to fire and cause damage. with current rules you have one chance to break stealth with the ship in the 1st turn.

Yes but if you only lock on with 1 weapon system you have a lesser chance of doing that crit, than if you lock on with all 3.

over 3 turns the average under current rules is fire all weapons once as you get 3 stealth checks.
with per weapon you have had 9 stealth checks in the same amount of time, which is still 3 weapons on average but like i have said before likely to be a weapon per turn.
3 checks per turn versus 1 is in favour of the per weapon rules of getting some firing, some damage and possible game effecting crits.

Lets say for simplicity that each weapon, if it beats stealth, does an average of 6 hits. It isn't precise, so that is an average of 1 crit.

Current rules: I have a 1 in 3 chance of beating stealth. If I succeed, all 3 weapons can fire, that is an average of 3 crits. If I fail, then I get no crits. I will pass 1 in 3 turns. There is an equal chance of getting the 3 crits in turns 1, 2 or 3. The mean crits per turn is 1.

Per weapon system: each weapon has a 1 in 3 chance of passing stealth. Therefore each weapon scores an average of 1/3 crits per turn. 3 weapons, makes an average of 1 crit per turn.

So... the odds are identical. What is different, is that under the current rules, you always get the 3 crits together: either in turn 1, turn 2 or turn 3. You are not more likely to blow out the weapons in turn 1 because under the current rules, 1 in 3 times, you will get all 3 crits in turn 1!

 

[Burger]

Rolling per weapon makes no sense at all from anything but a mathematical viewpoint. A ship only one has one targetting system; every weapon on the ship is tied to this system. If the stealth systems on the target fool the targetting array, it's been fooled. End of. If they don't fool it, the ship fires its weapons. End of.

Sorry, didn't realize we had a spaceship designer from the 23rd Century amongst us :lol:

 

[angelus2000]

The thing about Stealth which annoys people the most is 2 factors: It has to be rolled each and every single turn, and the all or nothing effect it has on firing.

For the first factor, Why not simply modify the existing "successfully attacked" modifier? Say ship x beats a base stealth score +5 on ship y, and can fire weapons that turn. On the next turn, ship x only needs to beat a stealth score of 4+, the next turn 3+, etc, as it continuely refines the targets sensor profile, to a minimum of 2+. You blow a stealth score, it resets. All current range and terrain modifiers would apply, Scout would apply only to the initial acquire roll.

With a gradual degradation with Stealth over time like this, a counterbalance should be included as well. Since stealth is usually regarded as "armor", and Minbari ships show this with thier reduced damage/crew tracks and lower hull, why not represent it as such? Thankfully, the game already does have something like this; GEG on Drakh ships

Simply put, if ship x has a stealth score of A to beat in order to fire at ship y, simply give ship y a damage/crew reduction propotional to its stealth score. Since stealth cannot be reduced past 2+, make the damage reduction value Stealth X+ - 2. So if stealth is 5+, that ship has a DR of 3. Modifiers to stealth also modify the DR; stealth go up, DR go up etc.

Yes, its like GEG, but GEG is constant regardless of anything else, this stealth DR would be variable, and at points gone completely as its stealth score had been reduced to near nothing.


To put it all together:

Turn 1. Omega fires at 28 inchs to a Sharlin from Boresight, faile stealth nothing happens

Turn 2. Omega fires at 19 inchs to Sharlin, beats stealth roll of 5+. It scores 5 hits for 10 damage. Stealth DR of 3 reduces it to 7 damage.

Turn 3. Omega fires at Sharlin again at 10 inches. Because it successfully attacked the Sharlin last turn, it only needs a 4+, which it beats. Laser cannon scores 12 damge, which is reduced to 10, Forward pulse cannon scores 5 damage, wich is reduced to 3.

Turn 4. Omega fires again, needs to beat stealth 3+, but fails.


Am I crazy or...?

 

[No. 1 Bear]

ok they might not get by as many weapons in one salvo but i would say they get hit more often. a warlock firing its missiles, railgun and beam needing 5+ to see a sharlin would on average get one weapon per turn under this.
under current rules hes likely to get them all 1 in 3 turns. now if its the 1st turn you lose out. but 2nd or 3rd you have had the chance to fire a couple of times without being shot and so works out better for minbos.

rolling once per weapon like i said is more effective over all as you can reduce minbari firepower on a more regular basis, therefore they would need toughening up as they really are quite fragile currently (usually damage of a ship one LP lower with 33% thresholds).

Seriously dude, just don't even talk about statistics any more, it really isn't your strong point. Different people have different strengths and weaknesses, your weakness is statistics. As Hash pointed out a while back you go with your "gut feeling" and I go with maths. Neither is bad or wrong, but your statistical arguements are always just plain incorrect.

Existing rules... you have a 1 in 3 chance of passing your 5+ stealth check. Therefore:
Weapon number 1 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 2 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 3 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.

Rolling per weapon:
Weapon number 1 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 2 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.
Weapon number 3 has a 1 in 3 chance of being able to fire.

It's the same.
Standard deviation, however, is lower when you're rolling per weapon.

I won't argue with your gut feeling, if you don't argue with my maths

I'm sorry but i may sound like an idiot but doesn't the stealth roll target decrease if you hit it. So having more attempts to beat stealth means your going to beat it more often. So doesn't the target decrease. I know exactley where your coming from. But if Persay the first weapon system hits doesn't the other 2 have an easier chance to beat it?

 

[Lord David the Denied]

Sorry, didn't realize we had a spaceship designer from the 23rd Century amongst us :lol:

You're a funny man, Burger... :roll:

 

[Burger]

I'm sorry but i may sound like an idiot but doesn't the stealth roll target decrease if you hit it. So having more attempts to beat stealth means your going to beat it more often. So doesn't the target decrease. I know exactley where your coming from. But if Persay the first weapon system hits doesn't the other 2 have an easier chance to beat it?

No, you only get the bonus if a different ship has already attacked the target.

 

[No. 1 Bear]

Thanks for that Burger, i was a little confused

 

[Right Hand of God]

obviously this disciussion is all something of a moot point, with the brand new edition hot off the press we are left with what we have got. But for those that are interested in trying something and maybe ending up with a mechanism that works, is balanced and does not leave either player wanting to throw dice or models at the walls, then perhaps some of us could agree new proposals and test them out amoungst ourselves, collate the results and provide Matt with feedback in 6 months time so that when next year's supplement is released there is a possibility of a stealth mechanism, that the players have tried, like, and have tested, being included in the supplement