Some suggestions for Criticals

[Foxmeister]

However the Warbird which has considerable less damage and crew then the Stormfalcon has been reduced to 4"

Yes, but the Warbird has Dodge 5+! Ignoring Accurate for the moment, this means it is on average "bigger" than it's HPs and crew would suggest - HPs around 27!

Plus, and it's a big plus, by dodging those hits in the first place, they cannot become critical hits and therefore it is on average and in many cases superior as HP 18/Dodge 5+ than straight HP 27.

That means it compares very well to other ships in its class. e.g. the Thentus (Spd 8, 24HPs,no Dodge), or a Ka'Toc (Spd 10, 20HPs, no Dodge) , both of which are regarded as good Skirmish choices.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Burger]

When I play Drazi, I am always hoping to receive some speed crits. -1 speed, -2 speed and -4 speed actually help Drazi when they're on their attack runs, it means they get a tighter turning circle and can make more attacks before overshooting.

I don't think that is how it should be. Going down to 50% or 25% speed would be something that is feared, rather than hoped for. A good change, IMO.

 

[Methos5000]

I don't think that is how it should be. Going down to 50% or 25% speed would be something that is feared, rather than hoped for. A good change, IMO.

Well thats fine. I don't have a problem with 25% and 50% reductions, I think a 75% reduction is a bit excessive though. I don't think a ship should fall below 50% speed until after it has been crippled.

Make it -1 speed = -25% speed, -2 speed = -1 turn (minimum of 1/45) an -4 speed is -50%. This way the slow lumbering ships get a freebie on an engine crit but the maneuverable ships will suffer a little more. The text even fits because it says Thrusters damage for the -2 speed, well maybe its the maneuvering thrusters.

 

[Burger]

That sounds fine to me too, though 25%/50%/75% is fine too IMO. Both are definitely better than current.

 

[Foxmeister]

Either suits me far better than what we currently have, but I do find the though of losing a turn (to a minimum of 1/45) quite appealing as a crit effect.

Regards,

Dave

 

[Enalut]

I likethe idea of proportional losses of speed but don't think that they need to be exclusive.

Reducing turns, lathough in some instnaces I like, I don't see how it can be balanced--losing 1 turn would either render about 1/3 the ships almost useless, but stating that a ship cann't be reduced below 1/45 makes those same ships immune. Don't like it from a balance standpoint.

No one seems to have that much problem with the -1 speed crit. Why don't we leave them as they are abnd say that speed crits don't stack but have the incriments be changed to:

Engine Crits (location 1-2)
Severity:
1-2: -1 Sp
*3-4: -25% of current speed (i.e. after the 1/2 reduction from crippled)
5: -50%
6: Moves as if adrift.

* (I don't have the book informt of me but think 3-4 are tehn same result onm the current table)

 

[Methos5000]

Either suits me far better than what we currently have, but I do find the though of losing a turn (to a minimum of 1/45) quite appealing as a crit effect.

Regards,

Dave

I thought that one might win me some votes It makes more sense, to me anyway, that the Warbird(to keep using the same example) could get knocked down to Speed 6 with 1/45 then speed 4 yet magically retain 2/45s.

 

[Burger]

I don't like that some ships would be worse affected by a 1 than a 3. Make it -
1-2: lose 25% speed
3-4: lose 25% speed and lose a turn (1 minimum)
5: lose 50% speed and lose a turn (1 minumum)
6: adrift

 

[Foxmeister]

Reducing turns, lathough in some instnaces I like, I don't see how it can be balanced--losing 1 turn would either render about 1/3 the ships almost useless, but stating that a ship cann't be reduced below 1/45 makes those same ships immune. Don't like it from a balance standpoint.

For the ships already on 1/45, you could perhaps say that these ships need to roll 4+ in order to turn at all whilst suffering from this crit.

Regards,

Dave

 

[greenboy]

Reducing turns, lathough in some instnaces I like, I don't see how it can be balanced--losing 1 turn would either render about 1/3 the ships almost useless, but stating that a ship cann't be reduced below 1/45 makes those same ships immune. Don't like it from a balance standpoint.

For the ships already on 1/45, you could perhaps say that these ships need to roll 4+ in order to turn at all whilst suffering from this crit.

Regards,

Dave

it can stiil use come to new heading to turn even with no turns

 

[Foxmeister]

it can stiil use come to new heading to turn even with no turns

As currently written, lumbering ships couldn't use Come About! without a turn.

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

I dont like the fact that some ships are basically immune to the lose a turn thing.
% based speed loss I am with. losing a turn I am not unless it effects everyone.

 

[Target]

I liked the idea of them not bein able to turn certain directions.

 

[Target]

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

Maybe this is our problem, why has a chronos got the same weapon as a Warlock, shouldn't the warlock have bigger guns even as secondaries. The Chronos should only have MPC not HPC
Maybe in 3rd ed whenever it may be, smaller ships lose a lot of firepower or range compared to bigger ships. Have hardly any DD compared to big ships. Don't give them use the word Heavy or describe Vorchans Plasma Accelerator as Light Plasma Accelerator While a Centurion has a Medium Plasma Accelerator.

 

[katadder]

why? nothing wrong with mounting the same weapons. you just have less of them as you are a smaller hull.
if a weapon works on a vessel why make differant ones just for the sake of it?

 

[Target]

Im thinkin that the smaller ships have to much firepower/range. Make them come into the bigger ships secondaries.
Bigger ships have bigger guns thats why you have bigger ships.
This kinda what im thinkin
Vorchan
Light Plasma Accelerator SAP 12" 4AD
Light Ion Cannons Twinlink 8" 8AD

Centurion
Medium Plasma Accelerator SAP, DD 15" 4AD
Medium Matter Cannon AP,DD 15" 4AD
Medium Ion Cannon Twinlink DD 12" 8AD
& so on.
Another way is to give weapons light, medium & heavy traits & then gives some massive ships a armour trait & heavy armour.
Light needs to confirm a crit vs it 3+ & 4+ vs heavy armour
Medium 4+ vs Heavy Armour.
This is a long way off.
I think the problem is Hull is a combination of Maneverbility, Size, ECM & Armour where the weapon traits is combination of ability to target & pierce the ships armour. Dodge & Stealth are extra layers of defense.
Another thing i would like to see is more variations with weapon traits instead SAP & high damage. How bout weak hitting power but high damage. We never see that.

 

[Foxmeister]

if a weapon works on a vessel why make differant ones just for the sake of it?

You mean like Laser/Pulse Arrays?

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

bring it up as much as you like but thats a completely differant topic and nothing to do with crits. which btw the L/P array would be the same through every class of ship and the renaming is because its a completely differant weapon to heavy pulse not the same weapon with new rules.
the L/P array is also pretty balanced anyway with suggested changes but this crit thing would need a whole rebalancing and basically redoing CTA.
also L/P arrays are differant tech/weapon not a variant of the same.
sure lets bin the whole idea of them then if it makes you happy and will stop you bringing it up here where it has nothing to do with the topic. vote against L/P arrays, lets give EA e-mine missiles.

 

[Foxmeister]

completely differant weapon to heavy pulse not the same weapon with new rules.

No it isn't a completely different weapon - it's the same weapon with a different name and new rules. The situation is identical.

However, even if you consider it to be a "completely different weapon", I refer you back to your statement:

if a weapon works on a vessel why make differant ones just for the sake of i

Does the HPC not work then?

Regards,

Dave

 

[katadder]

its more a fluff idea for Ea rather than giving them bloody e-mines, not a rebalancing of the game. but like i said cancel the idea as you dont see a point. next.

the main point is it doesnt require rebalancing at all. also the quote you took is out of context on its own. its why make a differant weapon for the sake of it on a smaller vessel when it can carry the same size weapons but less of them. in context thats a completely differant thing to what you are quoting and trying to get across.
why make a patrol HPC when a HPC is a HPC? thats the point.

why? nothing wrong with mounting the same weapons. you just have less of them as you are a smaller hull.
if a weapon works on a vessel why make differant ones just for the sake of it?

thats the full quote and its on about mounting the same weapon on smaller hulls.