You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Play nice. (This means you.)
Logins from the previous forum have been carried over; if you have difficulty logging in, please try resetting your password before contacting us. Attachments did not survive the migration--many apologies, but we're lucky we kept what we could!
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Potentially broken combination?
Yes, a combination that is a bit powerful...
Continuing Damage and Catastrophic.
The way the rules are written, at some point you will have to roll a 1, 3 or 5. And at that point you get to roll for the number of hull hits inflicted. And it costs less than a EHD, Catastrophic weapon...
Continuing Damage + Catastrophic = on average 3.5 hull hits, plus 1 system hit. Multiplier = 5.95
Extra Hull Damage + Catastrophic = on average 2.75 hull hits, plus 0.5 system hits. Multiplier = 10.5
So, for 57% of the cost, you're increasing average hull damage by 27% and system damage by 100%. Sounds like a deal to me...
Hmm...
Off the top o' my head, one problem is that the traits are all based on a comparison with a baseline weapon that does 0.5 hull hits per impact point. So, Catastrophic has a multiplier of x3.5, since its average number of hull hits is 1.75, and Extra Hull Damage has a multiplier of x3, since it does an average of 1.5.
But we don't account for the "layering" of these two traits -- the two together only increase the average number of hull hits by 175%, but increase cost by 950%.
Another potential issue is that Continuing Damage MAY be under-costed...
Continuing Damage + Catastrophic = on average 3.5 hull hits, plus 1 system hit. Multiplier = 5.95
Extra Hull Damage + Catastrophic = on average 2.75 hull hits, plus 0.5 system hits. Multiplier = 10.5
So, for 57% of the cost, you're increasing average hull damage by 27% and system damage by 100%. Sounds like a deal to me...
Hmm...
Off the top o' my head, one problem is that the traits are all based on a comparison with a baseline weapon that does 0.5 hull hits per impact point. So, Catastrophic has a multiplier of x3.5, since its average number of hull hits is 1.75, and Extra Hull Damage has a multiplier of x3, since it does an average of 1.5.
But we don't account for the "layering" of these two traits -- the two together only increase the average number of hull hits by 175%, but increase cost by 950%.
Another potential issue is that Continuing Damage MAY be under-costed...
The other problem is that there are always those unscrupulous power weasels who simply try to find the most effective point combinations possible.
Not implying that anyone on this board would ever do that, though.
Kevin
The other problem is that there are always those unscrupulous power weasels who simply try to find the most effective point combinations possible.
Not implying that anyone on this board would ever do that, though.
Well the good news is that, if anything, the one combination is too expensive -- that's always better than one that turns out to be too cheap. 
Awesome! I should refit all of my BBs with this combo onto their main battery. 
Just think of this combo with range 30... :twisted:
I found this out when I wanted a really potent weapon for a setting. One power is quite advanced (has cloak) and I wanted to give them a potent weapon system. Here it is:
Ionic Disruptor:
R: 12, 1/1/1, ACC: 4+, Ignores Shields, Continuing Damage, Catastrophic (90 SUs at TL0)
The heavy ships can carry a couple of these...
I think perhaps looking at an EHD+Catastrophic weapon trait might be the best way to go. Or maybe outlaw the Cont. DMG+Catastrophic combination (I don't want to do that though, as it is a perfectly legal combination)
I think perhaps looking at an EHD+Catastrophic weapon trait might be the best way to go. Or maybe outlaw the Cont. DMG+Catastrophic combination (I don't want to do that though, as it is a perfectly legal combination)
The Continuing Damage/Catastrophic combo is not under-costed as things stand... if anything, the problem is that Extra Hull Damage/Catastrophic is OVER-costed.
On the other hand, I am wondering if Continuing Damage by itself shouldn't be x2.0 instead of x1.7.
Continuing Damage is undercosted in my experience, being able to burn an opponent's ship hollow at an increase of only 1.7 is a bit much.
Continuing Damage is undercosted in my experience, being able to burn an opponent's ship hollow at an increase of only 1.7 is a bit much.
Having been the recipient of a few similar guttings I would tend to agree. Maybe I'm just sour-grapes because I din't use it on my opponent
Erik
PSYCO829 wrote:Continuing Damage is undercosted in my experience, being able to burn an opponent's ship hollow at an increase of only 1.7 is a bit much.
Having been the recipient of a few similar guttings I would tend to agree. Maybe I'm just sour-grapes because I din't use it on my opponent
Erik
Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Considering this, I think it would be premature to blame it all on Continuing Damage... 
Having said that, the fact that the Continuing Damage weapon always does a hull hit would suggest its multiplier should be at least x2. I should have kept my notes as to why we settled on x1.7...
PSYCO829 wrote:Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Considering this, I think it would be premature to blame it all on Continuing Damage...
Having said that, the fact that the Continuing Damage weapon always does a hull hit would suggest its multiplier should be at least x2. I should have kept my notes as to why we settled on x1.7...
Armor Plating might be why, i personally have found that Armor is a thorn in the side of Continuing Damage, since 2/3 of the hits are NOT eventually going to do hull. Just a guess.
murtalianconfederacy wrote:I think perhaps looking at an EHD+Catastrophic weapon trait might be the best way to go. Or maybe outlaw the Cont. DMG+Catastrophic combination (I don't want to do that though, as it is a perfectly legal combination)
The Continuing Damage/Catastrophic combo is not under-costed as things stand... if anything, the problem is that Extra Hull Damage/Catastrophic is OVER-costed.
On the other hand, I am wondering if Continuing Damage by itself shouldn't be x2.0 instead of x1.7.
One thing that struck me (although since I haven't been on t'internet for the last couple of days, I'm slightly behind the times) is the way you said you calc'd weapon traits on the basis of how much hull damage they did (actual quote is in this thread). Working it out, the average hull damage a Catastrophic+EHD weapon could cause is 3.5 (between one to six). That would work out to a modifier of x7.0. Steep, but some people must already use the x6.2 for two Range-Based weapon traits, right? It is still costlier than the Cont. Damage+Catastrophic, but going back to your quote, how about assigning a slightly higher combined trait modifier to Cont. Damage+Catastrophic? Maybe a x7.5? The actual number would require some working out, but that would cost it higher than the EHD+Catastrophic, and would mean that people would have to pay that extra to truly gut a ship.
Continuing Damage + Catastrophic = on average 3.5 hull hits, plus 1 system hit. Multiplier = 5.95
Extra Hull Damage + Catastrophic = on average 2.75 hull hits, plus 0.5 system hits. Multiplier = 10.5
Actually, thinking about it...
Extra Hull Damage "automatically inflicts a hull it". Catastrophic says "For each hull hit, roll a die."
Thus, the average amount of hull damage caused by this combination would be (100% x 3.5) + (50% x 3.5) = 5.25. Comparing this to the normal 0.5 hull hits, and you get a multiplier of 10.5, which is the product of 3 x 3.5.
All is well.
Let me just try and work that out...
Ahh...
A weapon with EHD would inflict on average 1.5 hull hits compared to a standard weapon. Each one of those hull hits, when combined with the Catastrophic hull trait, could cause 3.5 hull hits. 1.5x3.5=5.25, so it would mean a modifier of 10.5 would be applicable.
Still seems a bit too expensive when you can cause on average 67% of hull damage and much more systems damage for around 55% of the weapon, though. Maybe bumping it up to at least x2.0, as it will always cost one hull damage, as the wording ensures that it has to. Maybe a x2.2?
Make sure you factor in the "Boneless is awesome" modifier. I have a Continuing Catastrophic gun. Just got 18 evens on 3 dice. Then 12 hull so 30 damage.
Seriously though, when you balance for expectation, do you give a discount, a bonus, or nothing for increased variability like this?
PSYCO829 wrote:Its possible that I also overdid it, the weapon in question was a 1/3+/3/3 that shot to 30 with Piercing +2, Continuing Damage, and Starship Exclusive. <.<
Considering this, I think it would be premature to blame it all on Continuing Damage...
Having said that, the fact that the Continuing Damage weapon always does a hull hit would suggest its multiplier should be at least x2. I should have kept my notes as to why we settled on x1.7...
I apologize for the thread necromancy, but I have a theory about this. I stumbled across it the other day while revisiting Continuing with a fresh mindset. I saw that it was x1.7 rather than x2, and interpreted it as follows:
You do the initial damage roll for Continuing. Odds do hull hits and terminate. Evens don't do hull hits, and keep rolling until you get an odd... which terminates without a hull hit.
This version generates 2 expected systems hits per die and .5 expected hull hits, which means it might reasonably be priced somewhere between 1 and 2, but not at 2 itself. This does cast into doubt the earlier ruling here about continuing + EHD, however. The way my group, and everyone on these forums, has been playing Continuing should put it at exactly a x2 multiplier, as it generates on expectation 2 systems hits and 1 hull hit per die of damage.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Potentially broken combination?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.