Reduction in Damage for firing at range?

[phavoc]

Should beam weapons have a damage degradation applied to them for firing at long range? Every weapon has an effective range where the damage output is optimal. A beam-based weapons firing at long range has less of a change to hit sqaure on it's target to apply all of the damage it's capable of generating. So instead of a square-on hit you actually only get a glancing blow. It's still a hit, so that would be covered by the existing DM. And obviously missiles have a different mechanic, so if they hit, they hit.

The bottom-line reason for this would be to eliminate, or seriously reduce, the long-range sniping wars you will see occur with players not wanting to risk taking damage (or that have optimized their ship to not have to close with a potential target). Having to put your own ship in the line of fire to do damage seems better for an RPG game. Plus it gives the referee some fair opportunities to give it back to the players who are always killing his "average" NPC's.

Thoughts?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

I'm against nerfing or balancing things.

 

[Nerhesi]

If we go this route phavoc, we strongly boost fighters and smallcraft again because they will receive less damage while running the gauntlet. This would be in addition to the general nerfing of non-fusion weapons and the like, and downgrading of the power of range - which would need to rebalance ALL weapons (because a particle beam is now a much less attractive choice). I feel if range is to affect damage then we have the following options:

a) Whole new game mechanics
or
b) A single new weapon type where only it works this way... example, a high end laser weapon built on the laser Drill aspect.
Damage at ranges up to medium / long / very long = 100% / 50% / 25% etc...

 

[phavoc]

I'm against nerfing or balancing things.

Why would anyone be against balancing things???? Nerfing is one thing, but game balance?? How in the world do you justify that position?

If we go this route phavoc, we strongly boost fighters and smallcraft again because they will receive less damage while running the gauntlet. This would be in addition to the general nerfing of non-fusion weapons and the like, and downgrading of the power of range - which would need to rebalance ALL weapons (because a particle beam is now a much less attractive choice). I feel if range is to affect damage then we have the following options:

a) Whole new game mechanics
or
b) A single new weapon type where only it works this way... example, a high end laser weapon built on the laser Drill aspect.
Damage at ranges up to medium / long / very long = 100% / 50% / 25% etc...

Not really. It does change things, but potentially for the better. First off we already see potential for players to build sniping ships to min/max space combat. And, as so many have pointed out, this is supposed to be an RPG. Where else does a player get to emphasize personal skills than up close and personal? If the point is to be able to influence an activity due to being a "hero", then where is the heroism in being at very distant range slowly plinking someone to death who cannot shoot back?

And it's not whole new game mechanics at all. Those game mechanics are already present in the game now. Perfect example is missile combat. Missiles are now such that a player can potentially out-run them. Weapons, such as fusion guns, would be even MORE enticing and increase the desire to CLOSE with the enemy and do devastating damage. Smaller craft can't take damage like a ship can (which is as it should be). They should be deadly if they can get in close enough. So what if a particle beam is now a less attractive choice for distant combat? It still is a devastating weapon.. but now you have to come into range of your enemy who might be able to damage you in return.

This isn't any different. What it does is makes it possible for slower-lesser armed ships to actually have a chance to fight back and damage their attackers. Otherwise every player is going to build long-range weapons so they don't have to actually engage the enemy and risk taking damage of their own.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Well if the players have skills such as Pilot, sensor operator and Gunner then then best place to show off those skills is in space combat, and at range to really shine.
Sensor operators have to be at Very Long range to get a few rolls of EW against a salvo, Anything that gets through is the time for the Gunner to shine for PD. being closer can swamp a Gunner and then folks can start dying from Crew hits.

The Pilot Dodges, and lines up shots to help the gunner at every range.

If at Very Long range the Gunner has to roll well to hit and do damage for beams. The Sensor Operator can try and get a lock onto the target, and shake locks from the enemy. Why is being at range less heroic? Missiles are launched and it comes down to TL and the enemy Sensor rolls.
Being close up does allow boarding actions, but I have played out a few of them, and a single sand canister can really ruin the party, as can PD type attacks on the boarding ship. Even great armour takes a beating vs Sand or Pebbles.

SO I see space combat, even at long range as a very fun and enjoyable time for players, if that is what they want to do. I just finished playing with my group an hour ago, and they are trying to figure out how NOT to fight at all. They know a space combat is coming, they are trying to stack the deck strategically before they get to the system. (Drinax campaign, vs Hroal Irontooth and the Treasure ship.)
The party is all about not fighting, but are gearing up in case they have to. They could make some Allies, stat up some ships and go for it, but that is not what they want to do.

Players can have a great time at range.

 

[Nerhesi]

No one is really out-running missiles anymore - not anywhere near the same degree it was possible before.
As for long range sniping, that is an option that I would like to remain in. The more options we remove/reduce in effectiveness, the more we end up with one king of the hill option.

I do however see potential for weapons that normally can't reach past a certain range, shooting at long or very long range with reduced effect. Possibly in the players companion?
Or perhaps as you're saying, reduce weapon effectiveness after X range.

However, in both cases, I honestly see them more as very optional rules not the norm - not without making significant changes to armour and rebalancing most of the existing weapons.

 

[MongooseMatt]

However, in both cases, I honestly see them more as very optional rules not the norm - not without making significant changes to armour and rebalancing most of the existing weapons.

Agreed. It is a nice idea, but probably a complication too far.