Something I noticed about Evade

[ErinPalette]

Unless I am terribly mistaken, there is no good reason for a pilot to take Evasive Action in combat so long as there is room in the computer to run Evade.

Evasion Program: The computer applies a -1 to -3 DM to all attacks against the vessel, all without expending Thrust.

Evasive Action: The pilot MUST spend thrust to evade, and this only works per ONE attack. Admittedly, with a good pilot the DM is likely to be higher than that which the program can provide, but given the drawbacks this is still a losing proposition.

We really need to reconcile these two, since Traveller is -- by design -- focused on people not programs.

Here are my thoughts on how to fix it:
1) Either the Evade program should burn thrust or Evasive Action shouldn't. I prefer the former.
2) Evasive action ought to apply to all attacks, not just one. "Jinking in the flak," as it were.
3) A really good pilot ought to be able to make a skill roll (by burning thrust) and perform an evasion where the Effect, not skill level, is applied as DM.

 

[phavoc]

Something to keep in mind is that "evasive" maneuvers in space, using Newtonian motion laws, is a bit silly. If your 'jink' to the right costs you 1 thrust point, you must expend 1 thrust point to stop the motion, and then expend another thrust point to 'jink' back to the left. And assuming you want to stop roughly on your same original course, it will require a 4ht thrust point to halt your sideways motion.

There's no atmosphere to use as part of your maneuvering, so every action requires an opposite and equal reaction to halt. This all requires more energy than is being allocated. Unlike Star Wars, there are no ethereric pedals you can use to make radical maneuvers with. Sorry guys, but Wraith squadron wouldn't do very well in the Traveller universe.

 

[hdan]

The computer or pilot is spending fraction thrust points - say, half to divert, half to stop diverting. Though in reality, it would be a much finer set of mico-maneuvers. If the ship can be brought even on ship's width away from where your targetting computer expects it to be, then you're winning.

But yeah, it's still not a great idea, and should probably only be allowed a the longer ranges, where light-seconds start to matter.

I hope they clarify that the program uses thrust, or that the action does not. It bothers me too that they're inconsistent.

 

[hdan]

I like Erin's #3 suggestions - a pilot can burn points of thrust while piloting to make "evasive actions", which set a number to beat for all incoming fire. (That's assuming I understood Erin's point, of course.)

So not as a reaction, but as an action ("Full evasive maneuvers, Officer Kigurii!").

 

[Nerhesi]

Here are my thoughts on how to fix it:
1) Either the Evade program should burn thrust or Evasive Action shouldn't. I prefer the former.
2) Evasive action ought to apply to all attacks, not just one. "Jinking in the flak," as it were.
3) A really good pilot ought to be able to make a skill roll (by burning thrust) and perform an evasion where the Effect, not skill level, is applied as DM.

Hey Erin, interesting in that you bring this up because we had a lot of discussion about this some time ago - so it is an important topic. We actually arrived at where it is now after discussing several of the options. Originally we had discussed everything from Evade applying to all attacks, to Evade requiring thrust, to streamlining all evade/dodge/etc actions across personal/vehicle and starship, to exactly as you've stated, an Effect roll for the pilot that becomes a penalty for the attack.

However, we also took a look at balance concerns, AND the significant increase in time due to an additional roll. Mathematically, you'd have the exact same effect subtracting dex/skill of the pilot, from the attack roll. (It's also how a lot of games do it - the equivalent of an opposed roll, but building it into one roll).

As it stands now, you will have a limited # of "big penalties" you can give, based on thrust (Thats when it's Evasion software and piloting skill (and dm if you want)). Fighters will be able to dodge more, because they will have more thrust to play with You will have a constant "difficulty to be hit" if you're running evade software.

You'll find that there is no one best way to handle evasion. Each comes with their pros/cons and has a significant effect on how the space combat game will play-out/feel.

 

[Nerhesi]

I actually fully expect that the Traveller Companion would have multiple options around attacks, dodging, evasion, etc

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

Humans will never be as good as computers. Humans spill more fuel than a computer will ever need. Making both humans and computers work the same in a game is extremely boring.

 

[Nerhesi]

Humans will never be as good as computers. Humans spill more fuel than a computer will ever need. Making both humans and computers work the same in a game is extremely boring.

That is why games make sure the human element, is the most important element in those dramatic situation. Like Traveller, where skill, is greater than the computer given bonuses

Obviously not realistic, but then realism isn't generally very enjoyable if you're playing an RPG. Perhaps if this was a wargame/strategy game/miniature game - because then we're controlling armies and fleets

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Humans will never be as good as computers. Humans spill more fuel than a computer will ever need. Making both humans and computers work the same in a game is extremely boring.

That must be why humans don't do anything anymore...

 

[phavoc]

Humans will never be as good as computers. Humans spill more fuel than a computer will ever need. Making both humans and computers work the same in a game is extremely boring.

Easy enough to turn that around and have computers will never be as good as humans. Until there is a computer that isn't driven by lines of code then humans will always have many capabilities over a computer.

Computers are better at some things, not eveeything.