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 → Piercing Change
I've been wondering why Piercing now works the way it does? It seems odd that Piercing now has a better effect against shields 3 than 4, or 2 than 1.
I'm also finding it more difficult to design weapons with piercing as it seems counter intuitive the way they work now.
Decided to check, and heres what I've got. The amount of times a shot by a weapon with piercing will still be stopped by shields is in parentheses:
6--no change in effectiveness (1/6)
5-6--shields lose 50% effectiveness (1/6)
4-6--shields lose 33% effectiveness (2/6)
3-6--shields lose 50% effectiveness (2/6)
2-6--shields lose 40% effectiveness (3/6)
Hmm, it is a bit hard on shields 3-6, but honestly I can't see another pair of numbers that would give a smooth curve of effectiveness without going back to the 'add/subtract # from impact roll' that you had in SAE.
I think you may be overthinking things a little.
All Piercing does is simply reduce the number of saves a targeted ship may be entitled to.
Sometimes piercing weapons will benefit a firing ship more than others, as mc has shown, based on what the original save of the target is.
There are several ways to make a weapons battery more effective.
* Adding dice rolled (in effect more hits)
* Adding damage caused per hit (in effect more hits)
* Accurate (in effect more hits)
* Piercing (less saving by the target, so in effect more hits)
You'll notice a trend here. 
Kevin
It seems odd that Piercing now has a better effect against shields 3 than 4, or 2 than 1.
Because there's more to "pierce"?
If you look at expected vs. actual damage inflicted, piercing becomes much better as the target's shields increase:
Shields 6 = No change
Shields 5+ = +25% effective firepower
Shields 4+ = +33% effective firepower
Shields 3+ = +100% effective firepower
Shields 2+ = +200% effective firepower
All Piercing does is simply reduce the number of saves a targeted ship may be entitled to.
Not exactly. A piercing weapon may reduce the number of saves a targeted ship may be entitled to.
No use to have a piercing weapon when firing at a 6 shield, for example. In fact, piercing weapons just cancel even save rolls.
Marc
Hmm, it is a bit hard on shields 3-6, but honestly I can't see another pair of numbers that would give a smooth curve of effectiveness without going back to the 'add/subtract # from impact roll' that you had in SAE.
If the goal is to simply "halve the effectiveness of shields" - you could make no modification to the shield roll, but when the shields do block a hit, the attacking player rolls a d6, and on a 4,5 or 6, the shield is "pierced" and the damage goes through anyway. Yes, it's another die/dice roll, but it's not terribly complicated, and eliminates the "shield math" in the rules as designed...
Yes, it's another die/dice roll, but it's not terribly complicated...
And there's... the reason why it works the way it does.
Sure, none of the die rolls are complicated.
But once you start adding a die roll for this ability, and then another die roll for that trait, before long you end up with the die rolling monstrosity that S:AE is (IMO).
I believe, with a very few exceptions that I can even think of, that most combat rolls are "roll to hit, roll for shields."
And if the target ship has no shields, it's simply "roll to hit."
I can't speak for Dan, but having as few dice rolls as possible was extremely high on my list of design wish list.
Kevin
...
I can't speak for Dan, but having as few dice rolls as possible was extremely high on my list of design wish list.Kevin
Agreed.
...
Anyway, I guess it's the way I want to use shields is making me bias, but I always feel it's weird that shields 6 is always 6. In my mind piercing should reduce shields, so you need more powerful ones to resist piercing.
My bias aside I was just interested in why the Piercing +1 idea was changed.
Anyway, I guess it's the way I want to use shields is making me bias, but I always feel it's weird that shields 6 is always 6. In my mind piercing should reduce shields, so you need more powerful ones to resist piercing.
I dunno -- write it off to my concerns about completely negating anything. If you've got shields, you should always have at least a slim chance of them working...
My bias aside I was just interested in why the Piercing +1 idea was changed.
It was a way to provide an anti-shield weapon without multiple traits.
If you really want them, the "old" versions of piercing could be reintroduced:
Piercing +1 [P+1] = 1.54
Piercing +2 [P+2] = 1.93
Piercing +3 [P+3] = 2.17
Piercing +4 [P+4] = 2.28
I like the new piercing - its essentially the old "halves shields" - which was a great trait that got ignored most of the time because Pierce +2 was the same price but slightly better.
I can understand people wanting Pierce +x back, but it seems a tad harsh vs. shields to have a bunch of piercing traits, when armour and ECM don't have an anti- equivalent trait.
IAlthough I don't put shields on my ships, I think that the way the S N E writers have handled piercing is brilliant! The idea of this version of Starmada is to make the game more playable, and have shields still be useful.
In the SAE Version, if a weapon had Piercing+3, then shield of level 1,2,3,4 were the same; only a roll of 1 didn't penetrate. Even very expensive shield level 5 protected only on a 1 or 2; it was a waste of points. This made shields semi-useless, except for level 1.
There is No Need for Piercing +2, +3, +4 IMHO. :!:
If you really want them, the "old" versions of piercing could be reintroduced:
Piercing +1 [P+1] = 1.54
Piercing +2 [P+2] = 1.93
Piercing +3 [P+3] = 2.17
Piercing +4 [P+4] = 2.28
I had my first "beta" game last night with a few B5 ships and it annoyed me that shields could not be negated completely by piercing because I'm using shields as interceptors. I was coming on here to ask what the multipliers would be if I were to use a piercing +2 trait (the only one I need) and you'd already posted it!
Other than this the game was great and my players found it far smoother than SAE. I just need the final rules to be out and the final spreadsheet so I can go crazy with ship designs!
If everyone will recall, in S:AE, ships with shields Level One could Not have these reduced by Piercing +1,+2, or +3.
In this new Nova edition, shields "6" is like those S:AE level 1 shields, and is also not removable either.
This should not come as a shock, because it is exactly how the earlier versons worked...
If everyone will recall, in S:AE, ships with shields Level One could Not have these reduced by Piercing +1,+2, or +3.
In this new Nova edition, shields "6" is like those S:AE level 1 shields, and is also not removable either.
This should not come as a shock, because it is exactly how the earlier versons worked...
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
If everyone will recall, in S:AE, ships with shields Level One could Not have these reduced by Piercing +1,+2, or +3.
In this new Nova edition, shields "6" is like those S:AE level 1 shields, and is also not removable either.
This should not come as a shock, because it is exactly how the earlier versons worked...
Officially yes. But I'm ignoring this. Piercing +2 costs more than the Nova version of Piercing. As I'm using fixed ships from B5 I know virtually no ships will have higher (lower?) than 5 shields and most ships have 6 shields, so Nova piercing isn't worth it.
I'm happy with the fact that in my version there's only piercing +2 available, on only a selection of weapons; most ships have 6 shields and it costs more than piercing does now. I think that's pretty balanced.
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → Piercing Change
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.