Redundancy/Armour - Which Version?
- Thread starter Triggy
- Start date
the amount of times I have been saved because my opponent fluffs with his big mag gun and that wont happen as much 
On the mystical crit thing...
I used the 6-6 one as an example because it was a particularly painful game. We've seen similar results from lost arcs, and a G'Quan that got a bad adrift when it turned towards a wall. Though I tried to kill it, I could just as easily watched it drift away.
My point is the random factor is often not fun if the really far out rolls come very early in a game and effectively end it. Say in a game where 40% of you buy is in one ship.
As to the 'nearly no one' comments... 20% of the population isn't nearly no one. It may not be enough to swing the vote that way, but hardly no one.
Wanting some randomness as opposed to all randomness is not asking for chess... a bit like speed limits on a road isn't asking the government to drive your car.
The popularity of the various new beam systems shows some desire to limit the randomness of the game, and damage. There is a good argument that the possibility of a huge roll up is just as important as the extra damage from precise/mod weapons, and we shouldn't limit it at all. That the random huge roll up is the 'fun' of the game.
I don't think most people agree, folks want some roll up potential, but current incarnation is too much. Similar thing with crits. Right now effects are the most potent element in many games and folks want to limit that. They want the tactics to matter more than a random roll, they want the big ships to have an effect not be frustrating.
Ripple
I used the 6-6 one as an example because it was a particularly painful game. We've seen similar results from lost arcs, and a G'Quan that got a bad adrift when it turned towards a wall. Though I tried to kill it, I could just as easily watched it drift away.
My point is the random factor is often not fun if the really far out rolls come very early in a game and effectively end it. Say in a game where 40% of you buy is in one ship.
As to the 'nearly no one' comments... 20% of the population isn't nearly no one. It may not be enough to swing the vote that way, but hardly no one.
Wanting some randomness as opposed to all randomness is not asking for chess... a bit like speed limits on a road isn't asking the government to drive your car.
The popularity of the various new beam systems shows some desire to limit the randomness of the game, and damage. There is a good argument that the possibility of a huge roll up is just as important as the extra damage from precise/mod weapons, and we shouldn't limit it at all. That the random huge roll up is the 'fun' of the game.
I don't think most people agree, folks want some roll up potential, but current incarnation is too much. Similar thing with crits. Right now effects are the most potent element in many games and folks want to limit that. They want the tactics to matter more than a random roll, they want the big ships to have an effect not be frustrating.
Ripple
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
We currently have some randomness as opposed to all randomness. Complaining that you could get (un)lucky is like complaining that you could potentially go over the speed limit, and so a limiter should be put on cars. (Funnily enough some would call this asking the government to drive your car 
)
The popularity of TBS over BBS would seem to indicate that people don't want to shut down the possibility of a freak shot, just reduce the chances of it happening.
Criticals are similar in my eyes. A save (or having to roll and beat a redundancy score) would do a good job of toughening up the big ships, whilst still allowing for (although reducing the chance of) a lucky critical.
Just ignoring the first X criticals just rules out the freak shot altogether for a while, but leaves the big ships as the bags of tissue paper that they currently are. You may as well just make a rule banning them from being destroyed during the first turn too. It makes the same amount of sense, and would stop the upset of having your flagship destroyed by freak rolling after spending all that time setting up...
)The popularity of TBS over BBS would seem to indicate that people don't want to shut down the possibility of a freak shot, just reduce the chances of it happening.
Criticals are similar in my eyes. A save (or having to roll and beat a redundancy score) would do a good job of toughening up the big ships, whilst still allowing for (although reducing the chance of) a lucky critical.
Just ignoring the first X criticals just rules out the freak shot altogether for a while, but leaves the big ships as the bags of tissue paper that they currently are. You may as well just make a rule banning them from being destroyed during the first turn too. It makes the same amount of sense, and would stop the upset of having your flagship destroyed by freak rolling after spending all that time setting up...
l33tpenguin
Mongoose
Burger said:
I think by beamy they do mean the occasional shot that will totally gut a ship. Take the Shadows for example. Their beams were constantly cutting ships in half! Of course, they are really the only race seen that could have such 'runaway' beams.
Actually, now that you suggest it, I'm all for a rule banning destroying ships above the level of the fight in the first turn...=)
What folks seem to want from the banning effects argument is they don't want a ship rendered useless early in the game. Being blown up would count as rendered useless to me, but folks like to see stuff blow up, so maybe that balances.
as for he speed limit analogy... well there is a penalty for going over the limit, the government doesn't stop you, just makes you pay... maybe you have to pay your opponent a dollar for every early crit...=)
Ripple
What folks seem to want from the banning effects argument is they don't want a ship rendered useless early in the game. Being blown up would count as rendered useless to me, but folks like to see stuff blow up, so maybe that balances.
as for he speed limit analogy... well there is a penalty for going over the limit, the government doesn't stop you, just makes you pay... maybe you have to pay your opponent a dollar for every early crit...=)
Ripple
People don't want to see themselves losing the chance to use a ship in a game. In other words, if the enemy prioritises a ship for destruction that's all well and good but if people bring something along (particularly if it's 40+% of your fleet) they want the option to move it and shoot it before it dies. If it then dies then fair enough, particularly if it's purely through a large volume of firepower (I've taken down an Omega turn 2 of a game before in 5 FAP Raid without doing a single crit or getting more than 150% beam hits!)
Just a quick aside here.
One of the original design premises of CTA was that any ship _could_ be destroyed in a single salvo (note the critical hit table in the first edition!). This was to get the 'Hood Effect'. YMMV, of course, and it likely won't be a factor at all in the next CTA.
One of the original design premises of CTA was that any ship _could_ be destroyed in a single salvo (note the critical hit table in the first edition!). This was to get the 'Hood Effect'. YMMV, of course, and it likely won't be a factor at all in the next CTA.
mollari_uk
Mongoose
I actually don't mind that. It's called "putting all your eggs in one basket". However it currently happens too easily, and big ships don't just get destoryed but made useless too easily.
If you risk all to send your ships against a big target then there should be a chance to succeed, but big ships should be very powerful so that if you fail you lose everything.
"Chipping" away slowly with no chance of a big effect make for a slow and boring game for me.
If you risk all to send your ships against a big target then there should be a chance to succeed, but big ships should be very powerful so that if you fail you lose everything.
"Chipping" away slowly with no chance of a big effect make for a slow and boring game for me.
nekomata fuyu
Mongoose
I'm agreed with mollari (I never thought I'd say that v.v).
The problems with the crits against big ships isn't that they're possible (even on the first turn), but that they're too probable. This is true regardless of whether the game is on turn 1 or turn 10. The token immunity version doesn't bother to try and balance this - it just changes how the game is broken for the first turn or so, and then leaves it how it's currently broken from there on out.
The problems with the crits against big ships isn't that they're possible (even on the first turn), but that they're too probable. This is true regardless of whether the game is on turn 1 or turn 10. The token immunity version doesn't bother to try and balance this - it just changes how the game is broken for the first turn or so, and then leaves it how it's currently broken from there on out.
A Redundancy rule wouldn't change this at all as the damage/crew are still suffered, but annoying crit effects can be ignored. Also, I don't see anyone complaining about being killed first turn by raw damage/crew, it's losing your main gun and not being able to move (and not being able to repair the damage) that gets most people.nekomata fuyu said:
Ships can still get it in the first turn even with redundancy as when it get's destroyed with raw damage usually there is a fair amount crits which eventually get through. It's just way less likely to lose your flagship to errant missle.Triggy said:
Redundancy is defindnately the way to go. I have now idea how long we have been playin a system with it but our games are so much better cause of it.
mollari_uk
Mongoose
I just wrote a huge post trying to consolidate all the suggested rules and my internet connection screwed up and I lost it. Anyway, is there any merit in getting all the suggestions in one place so that people can play test or is this just about the vote up to now?
The original purpose of this thread was to try to get some consensus about what sort of redundancy was wanted, the reasoning being that it might not go into P&P at all but the chances were better if there was some agreement in advance about what is likely to make people happy.
Looking at the vote, the most popular two options are "Ignore first few criticals' effects but not damage/crew" and "Save against all criticals' effects but not damage/crew". On the chance that one form of redundancy might go into P&P, which of these two would be best? Possibly a hybrid - ignore the first few effects entirely, save against subsequent critical effects? Exactly how many are ignored and the number needed to roll to save would presumably depend on the PL of the ship being hit.
Looking at the vote, the most popular two options are "Ignore first few criticals' effects but not damage/crew" and "Save against all criticals' effects but not damage/crew". On the chance that one form of redundancy might go into P&P, which of these two would be best? Possibly a hybrid - ignore the first few effects entirely, save against subsequent critical effects? Exactly how many are ignored and the number needed to roll to save would presumably depend on the PL of the ship being hit.
sidewinder
Mongoose
Any kind of save could be based on more then just the PL of the ship. Like, the warlock and a sharlin are the same level but the warlock is probably a tougher ship so would probably get a better save.
No no no... ANYTHING but a fluff-based mechanism please. The idea is totally a meta-gaming concept, it is intended to fix the current problem, that a swarm of big ships will always beat a large ship. It is not intended to add flavour, interest, or fluff to the game. It needs ot be based on PL only, or damage points... I prefer the former but some ppl prefer the latter.sidewinder said:
Besides, the Warlock's strength is already represented by its hull 6 and more damage points than the Sharlin. The poor Sharlin doesn't need to be punished doubly.
