Some suggestions for Criticals

[Ripple]

for Katadder on the No SA ever crits...

What, no secondary bridge with an exec on your ships? I know I'd have a secondary control room on something the size of a small town.

Makes no more sense than the no DC crit. You have chain of command for a reason... so no one is confused should admiral bob die... captain bill takes over and starts issuing orders from engineering if he has too, hell from the hall comm if that's the only way.

Ripple

 

[Foxmeister]

what give you a shot at killing them. So -- what does this do on balance? The -75% speed crits look vicious to Whitestars.

And what does a -4 speed crit look like to a Ka'Bin'Tak, or an Amu? More than vicious!

Score a speed crit on a White Star at present, and the ISA player just simple doesn't care because it has no real effect. Given that engine crits make up a third of all crit results, and the only one the White Star has to fear is the adrift result, it is simple busted at present.

If you crippled a ship, you already reduce it's speed by 50%, so proportional speed reductions are already in the game, so there is literally no justification for not including them now and balance will actually be *improved* because right now it's well out of whack on speed crits. Note the WS isn't the target of this, but it is the most obvious benefactor of the current speed crit system.

I get that you support the change, but I disagree as to the amount of testing required to put this in. IMHO, little testing is required since this will fix something that is so obviously inherently imbalanced.

Regards,

Dave

 

[silashand]

The No DC & vitals have to change. They are the biggest funkillers of them all.

Agreed. They more than anything else on the crit table have the capacity to ruin games and realistically should be removed/replaced with something more appropriate.

Cheers, Gary

 

[Methos5000]

Note the WS isn't the target of this, but it is the most obvious benefactor of the current speed crit system.

And the most heavily punished when it comes to crew crits and adrift rolls.

Proportional speed crits slow it down even more making it harder to maneuver thus letting it get hit even more easily and possibly suffering more adrift and crew crit rolls. Its not as simple a solution as you make it out to be, it will have to be tested as a change to the crit table changes how all the potential crits can effect ships.

I'm not ruling out the possibly of a proportional speed crit, but it has to be tested thoroughly to make sure that some races don't become even more vulnerable to crit effects because of their speed loss. Drazi come to mind aren't they punished enough? To slow a Drazi ship down to speed 4 it may as well be dead because its going to be next turn.

And why shouldn't we make -AD crits proportional too? Its the same problem some races are hit much harder then others by this crit so shouldn't it be proportional also?

 

[Foxmeister]

To slow a Drazi ship down to speed 4 it may as well be dead because its going to be next turn.

I don't see why the this is disproportionately affecting the Drazi over any other race in particular?

And why shouldn't we make -AD crits proportional too? Its the same problem some races are hit much harder then others by this crit so shouldn't it be proportional also?

Large ships are already disproportionately affected by crits than smaller ships and, in general, those are the ones with more AD. A Power Fluctuation on an Armageddon level ship is potentially losing far, far, more firepower than the same crit on a Raid level ship.

There are plenty of issues with the crit table, but even just fixing the speed one will bring it closer to balanced than it currently is.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

I fail to see why it would take so much testing as a avid gamer I can predict what kind of impact this would have.

Agreed, same here!

I don't think excessive playtesting would be required for a change of this nature. I think that all our combined experience of playing the game and knowing how often certain things happen, and how much they affect the game, allow us to predict the impact of such a change. True if you're a perfectionist then you'd want to spend weeks testing out every little change (not that that is a bad thing, hell no, its a great thing if you've got the time!). But in reality we have to go with our judgement and base our decisions on our knowledge and past experience. So we can see, that with this change, fast ships will be affected more by speed crits. White Stars, Vorchans, Drazi will lose 2-3" instead of 1", 6-7" instead of 2", and 9-12" instead of 4". Slow ships will lose less than currently, very slow ships would remain operational where currently they are stopped. This would interact with crippled: crippled with a -4 speed is currently a death sentence for a lot of ships, anything below 8" speed is stopped. But with the change they would still be able to crawl along (and more importantly, turn). Crippled WS with a 75% crit would move just under 2", instead of the current 3.5". Reasonable, I think.

My years of experience tell me that all these changes are good things, that will make the game more fair and fun. So for me, I'd be happy to go ahead and make the changes without exhaustive playtesting. Maybe a couple of games with the most affected races (Drazi, ISA, Dilgar). YMMV.

 

[Target]

Put a revised crit chart like the have for playtest rules or in S&P & see how we react.
Would be easier than doing the playtest rules so more people would use them & give reports especially since it is a constant for all players & games.

 

[katadder]

for Katadder on the No SA ever crits...

What, no secondary bridge with an exec on your ships? I know I'd have a secondary control room on something the size of a small town.

Makes no more sense than the no DC crit. You have chain of command for a reason... so no one is confused should admiral bob die... captain bill takes over and starts issuing orders from engineering if he has too, hell from the hall comm if that's the only way.

Ripple

well anytime you watch B5 the exec is always on the one and only bridge you ever see. sheriden was when facing off against the blackstar and in fact all EA execs are. in WSs anyone of importance is.

 

[skavendan]

Rather than adding a save to make more dice rolls. I think changing the to hit would far better standard crit rule requires a 6.

How about changing it so that every priority level above your own means that it adds +1 to roll.

BUT levels below your priority level do not get -1 to the roll requirements. for example.

skirmish class attacting:
Against patrol 6
Against a skirmish 6
raid requires a 7 to crit 6/4+
battle requires a 8 6/5+

precise could say its normal irratable self and lower the requirement by 1.

This would make it very hard for a patrol level ship to crit a battle level with an minimal amount of dice rolls.

 

[katadder]

we have had this time and again. there is no reason a HPC from a chronos cant cause a crit as easily as a HPC from a warlock.
the differance in this game that helps the bigger ship cause the crits is the number of AD it throws. this is the balancing factor. if we did as you said every ship using the same weapon would have to have that exact same weapon including AD no matter the ship size as then balance would come from bigger ships doing heavier damage easily.

this has been said on multiple threads even in the last week and Czuschlag has agreed with me on them which if we both agree then theres gotta be something to it

 

[skavendan]

surly the bigger ships are made out of better stuff though.
It would be a case of firing a pistol at someone in a bullet prove vest
and then
firing a armour piercing bullet at the same person.

Or should i say firing a pistol at someone without a bullet proof vest on and then firing a pistol at someone with a vest on.

 

[katadder]

well thats 2 differant weapons.
its more a case of one guy shooting once with a pistol (ie patrol), may kill, may just hurt alot. or 10 guys shooting once with a pistol (ie war), alot more likely to kill.
the big ship is also more survivable due to having more damage.
so overall big ship = more weapons = more chance of crits
big ship = more damage = more chance of surviving crits

just need to get rid of the no DC crit and big ships will survive better.

 

[H]

surely that is represented by the hull score, 6 on a G'Quan compared to 5 on a t'loth for example.

Also, I'm not 100% sure, but the new stupidly names British carriers will be made of the same sort of matereals as a destroyer... and both can have their propellors blown off by the same weapons as well.

 

[Methos5000]

To slow a Drazi ship down to speed 4 it may as well be dead because its going to be next turn.

I don't see why the this is disproportionately affecting the Drazi over any other race in particular?

Because ships that are fast and maneuverable generally do not have anywhere near the amount of damage of a slow lumbering behemoth. The big ship can usually survive a turn not moving, the small light ship that all the sudden can't escape enemy fire in any form is pretty much dead.

Low speed ships are not designed to avoid enemy fire they are designed to absorb it. Fast maneuverable ships are designed to avoid enemy fire in the first place. When you suddenly make that ship a very slow one you remove that capability and its lower damage/crew/hull score will not let it survive long in that situation.

And why shouldn't we make -AD crits proportional too? Its the same problem some races are hit much harder then others by this crit so shouldn't it be proportional also?

Large ships are already disproportionately affected by crits than smaller ships and, in general, those are the ones with more AD. A Power Fluctuation on an Armageddon level ship is potentially losing far, far, more firepower than the same crit on a Raid level ship.

There are plenty of issues with the crit table, but even just fixing the speed one will bring it closer to balanced than it currently is.

Regards,

Dave

It also punishes races that have multiple banks of lower AD weapons more then races with a single large bank. 2 4 AD banks lose 2AD vs. 1 8AD losing 1AD, the 2 bank ship lost 25% of its firepower compared to 12.5% for the single bank ship.

In the end I'm not saying I'm 100% opposed to some kind of proportional system in the crit table, I'm just saying its not as cut and dry and everyone makes it sound.

 

[skavendan]

perhapes we should look at it the other way then rather than trying to lower the number of crits inflicted have more affective damage control. and allow things to be repaired in the same turn they are suffered.

 

[H]

somebody once suggested the repair of criticals (ie the number) should be based upon ship size, hence crew numbers so an arm chip could repair 6 a turn, a warship 5 and so on, until it was skelly crewed at which time its crew number became irrelevant.

 

[skavendan]

Well more crew means more damage control teams surly as a WAR class ship would expect to take some hammer.

 

[Foxmeister]

Because ships that are fast and maneuverable generally do not have anywhere near the amount of damage of a slow lumbering behemoth. The big ship can usually survive a turn not moving, the small light ship that all the sudden can't escape enemy fire in any form is pretty much dead.

Sorry - but in the case of the Drazi this is verifiably not true. Drazi Stormfalcons have the same number of HPs as an Omega, and Nightfalcons practically the same as a G'Quan (before P&P at least). Both of these are faster and more manoeuverable than the Omega and G'Quan. Now, I'm not saying I'd pick a Stormfalcon over an Omega, but I probably would pick a Nightfalcon over a G'Quan.

The Firehawk as pretty reasonable damage for a Raid level ship (same as a Hyperion), and with Dodge 5+ is "effectively" bigger.


Regards,

Dave

 

[Methos5000]

Because ships that are fast and maneuverable generally do not have anywhere near the amount of damage of a slow lumbering behemoth. The big ship can usually survive a turn not moving, the small light ship that all the sudden can't escape enemy fire in any form is pretty much dead.

Sorry - but in the case of the Drazi this is verifiably not true. Drazi Stormfalcons have the same number of HPs as an Omega, and Nightfalcons practically the same as a G'Quan (before P&P at least). Both of these are faster and more manoeuverable than the Omega and G'Quan. Now, I'm not saying I'd pick a Stormfalcon over an Omega, but I probably would pick a Nightfalcon over a G'Quan.

The Firehawk as pretty reasonable damage for a Raid level ship (same as a Hyperion), and with Dodge 5+ is "effectively" bigger.


Regards,

Dave

Thats why I said generally and not every. Lets look at some numbers
Ship Full speed -25% -50% -75%
Stormfalcon 10 7.5 5 2.5
Nightfalcon 8 6 4 2
G'quan 6 4.5 3 1.5
Omega 7 5.25 3.5 1.75
Warbird 12 8 6 4

Now by comparison even the Stormfalcon isn't that much faster under the proposed system a max of 1" over the G'Quan the Nightfalcon is only .5" faster. So from this angle it doesn't look too bad as these ships are comparable in defense. And I agree that these ships gain an advantage under the current system. However the Warbird which has considerable less damage and crew then the Stormfalcon has been reduced to 4", its these more fragile ships where the problem comes into play(especially since they will form the bulk of the fleet) as the ship can no longer escape any enemy fire plus its agile and 2/45 pretty much useless. So not only are you dropping its speed by a considerable margin your also ignoring the importance of its turns AND its traits. Far too much for such a common crit. These ships(Warbirds and sunhawks for example) will drop like flies with this proposed change so I say again, Do the Drazi need to be punished even more?

Maybe if the crit table stayed the same but now spd crits stack however a ship can't be reduced to below 1/2 spd(or alternatively each level can stack so you could have 12 -1 spd crits but still be at -1 but if you get a -2 then your at -3). So the big gargantuan spd 4 ships will never be slower then spd 2(this gives them a resiliency against speed crits) but some of the smaller ships that rely on spd would still maintain some of it(with a spd 12 ship never being below 6 until its crippled) and with multiple stacked crits would take longer to fix all of them too. You can say it can go below half after its crippled because a significant amount to its engines could be destroyed by that point.

This way big slow ships aren't knocked to speed zero and the small fast ships can still rely on the speed to a degree. I want things to be balanced but I think 75% speed loss is a little too much for ships that rely on their speed as part of their defense. I mean a Ka'bin'tak will lose 3 spd but a Warbird will lose 8 that feels kinda harsh for the little guy.

Using my example above the G'Quan would fall to speed 3 the Stormfalcon speed 5. That is an extra inch over the current proposal but of 1 inch difference but 1/2 of the difference under the current rules(current rules giving a stormfalcon a 4" advantage).

Bah...I can't get the chart lined up properly hopefully it can be understood. Its too early in morning for me to thinking this much....

 

[skavendan]

Psi Corp Mothership 4: 3(-25%) 2(-50%) 1(-75%)