That would only be true if all criticals knocked out the ship that suffers them. Seeing as a lot of the "critical" results don't knock out the target ship, throwing around the 1/6 and 1/3 probabilities is really nothing more than fearmongering.Fin-man said:I'm really glad that this is generating some notice as the effects of criticals are what is unbalancing the game IMO. I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance? (Or worse, a 1 in 3 chance for precise weapons.)
neko said:That would only be true if all criticals knocked out the ship that suffers them. Seeing as a lot of the "critical" results don't knock out the target ship, throwing around the 1/6 and 1/3 probabilities is really nothing more than fearmongering.Fin-man said:I'm really glad that this is generating some notice as the effects of criticals are what is unbalancing the game IMO. I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance? (Or worse, a 1 in 3 chance for precise weapons.)
Unbalanced would be if heavily damaged ships operated at peak efficiency right up until the dying moments of their life (when they become crippled), and the "critical" effects are important to avoid this problem. If the critical critical effects are cropping up too frequently at present, what's needed is to shift the tables around so that the non-critical critical effects (such as speed reductions) crop up more often instead. The best way that I can see to do this would be to rejig the tables to use a 2d6 roll instead.
Example:
Engine Criticals (1-2 on a d6) Roll 2d6 for severity.
2 No turns
3-4 Each turn needs 4+ to succeed
5-8 Speed -1
9-11 Speed -2
12 Speed 0
Set the Damage and Crew values for each result as necessary, and make reductions cumulative.
With a table such as that above, a speed 0 or no turning result will be rare, a reduced turning or speed -2 result will be uncommon, and the usual result will be a gradual degrading of the ship's speed. This will allow criticals to do their job of degrading the target's performance without having the more drastic results being quite as common.
Considering you have to roll a 6 to GET a crit in the first place (barring Precise weapons, which are still rare), that makes it 1 in TWELVE chances of a disabling crit, even by your definition of 'disabling' (which I would call 'priority damage control').Fin-man said:"I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance?"
Over 50% of the criticals on the chart can take a key ship out of the fight, or at the very least degrade it's ability to contribute to the battle.
And that's why I said that it's only a 1/6 chance if all criticals knock a ship out of the battle, You then contradict yourself by giving a figure of only ~50% of criticals taking a ship out of the battle OR degrading the ship's ability to contribute to the battle - Even if 50% of criticals took a ship out of a battle, then it's a 1/12 chance of taking the ship out of the battle, not the 1/6 that you state. That figure also includes criticals that merely degrade a ship's performance, which is the whole point of critical hits.Fin-man said:Neko,
That's why I said, "I'm all for the lucky hit that knocks out a key ship, but should this really happen on a 1 in 6 chance?"
Over 50% of the criticals on the chart can take a key ship out of the fight, or at the very least degrade it's ability to contribute to the battle. (A G'Quan that can only fire weapons on a 4 or better each turn , or a Victory that is Speed 0 - Yea.)
No, there is a problem with the players in your group. Look at the poll on this thread. 4 to 1 say there's no problem. Just because you have a problem doesn't automatically mean everyone else is wrong.Fin-man said:When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set.
Wulf Corbett said:No, there is a problem with the players in your group. Look at the poll on this thread. 4 to 1 say there's no problem. Just because you have a problem doesn't automatically mean everyone else is wrong.Fin-man said:When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set.
Wulf
And that is, in fact, why I have no problem at all in stating that you are wrong when you state that there is a problem with the rules. There may possibly be, but if there is it's not to be judged solely on your experience. You are in the minority in finding crits a problem. That tells me there is no clear problem in the rules.Fin-man said:Your milage may vary.![]()
Fin-man said:I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sway the experiences we've had in our group. When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set.
Fin-man
You may or may not have had bad experiances from the critical tables before now - I wouldn't even try to dispute that - but that still doesn't change the statistics you were giving from being false.Fin-man said:Neko,
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sway the experiences we've had in our group. When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set. You can disagree, but it doesn't change what we've seen in the 50+ games we played before recognizing the impact critical hits had in decided the game.
Fin-man
No exaggeration, I only get one game a week usually, so if it's not finished in one session, it takes a fortnight...Ripple said:Wulf throws out the fine old bone of not having a fort night to play a game. Somehow I have to hope that is an exaggeration, because if the game takes a fortnight to play with just a reduction in crit effect frequency then the game must really be decided by crits all the time because I've never had a game take more than 4 hours.
Fin-man said:Neko,
I respect your opinion, but it doesn't sway the experiences we've had in our group. When game after game becomes, "who got the luckiest critical first - wins!", then there is a problem with the rules set. You can disagree, but it doesn't change what we've seen in the 50+ games we played before recognizing the impact critical hits had in decided the game.
Fin-man
Ponkavitch said:i.e. a Bin’Tak being taken out by 2 criticals when playing for an industrial world).