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 → ROF point-cost discussion
I was looking at the number of dice getting through while rolling from the same dice pool... in the long run, you are right, but if only one shot got through each round, and those shots were hitting weapons, the ship with fewer high rof weapons would be on the losing end of the game.
Not looking at the charts so much as examining the loss value of each weapon.
John
Since I'm using a spreadsheet, complexity of the formula didnt bother me a whit. I would wager that anyone who is designing ships is doing it on a spreadsheet these days, so I wouldnt be overly worried about keeping the formula simple. Anyone who is going to do it by hand can easily hand a little bit of formula compication...
I'm one of those handy folks...the reason being that I find a difference between my hand computations and the spread sheet results on occassion...and I trust my working through it more than the computer's. 
*chuckles*
Can you give me a specific example of a "sticking point"?
They are anywhere where the cost of adding 1 weapon is the same as adding multiple weaposn with the same 'firepower'. For example, why use a 2/1/1 weapon when 2x 1/1/1 weapons are the same cost? The same applies to 3/1/1 weapons. Those are the easier to pick out, but there are others. For example, a 3/1/3 costs the same amount as 3x 1/1/3 weapons.
It occurs in many places on that table.
The larger number of weapons tends to be superior due to the fact that a single weapon is gone in a single hit whereas the multiple weapons are much harder to take out. This is especially true for the larger hulls and larger weapons which wouldnt 'double up' the hit chart as much.
Again, is it a huge discrepancy? No, I dont think so, but its definately there and I think there should be some reason to want to put a 3/1/1 on over 3x 1/1/1 if for no other reason than its easier to keep track of them all of the ship sheets.
In the more complex formula, a single weapon is always going to have a price break over equivalent dice in multiple weapons...the larger the weapon, the bigger the discount because the more vulnerable it is to losing it all in one attack.
So, to me, it just made sense to want to provide a true fix for the formula that preserves the balance between multiple weapons vs larger weapons.
They are anywhere where the cost of adding 1 weapon is the same as adding multiple weaposn with the same 'firepower'. For example, why use a 2/1/1 weapon when 2x 1/1/1 weapons are the same cost? The same applies to 3/1/1 weapons. Those are the easier to pick out, but there are others. For example, a 3/1/3 costs the same amount as 3x 1/1/3 weapons.
Ah, see... now you're getting into a completely different area. My concern was fixing the formula so that adding a higher ROF was proportionally more expensive than a higher PEN or DMG. That problem has been solved.
What you're talking about is something else, and not something that I'm convinced is a problem. With the damage track set up as it is, there's absolutely no difference between a 3/1/1 weapon and three 1/1/1 weapons -- so why shouldn't they cost the same?
With the damage track set up as it is, there's absolutely no difference between a 3/1/1 weapon and three 1/1/1 weapons -- so why shouldn't they cost the same?
Sure there is. Picture a 3/1/1 weapon with all the bells and whistles cranking its cost up to a high level (R:18, ignores Shields or Extra Hull Dmg, 3+ to hit or whatever).
It will have 1 'slot' on the hit table meaning 1 in 6 shots that hit the ship will kill the weapon outright.
With 3x 1/1/1 weapons that have the same bells and whistles, you still only have 1 'slot' on the hit table assuming your ship is at least size 6. So, it will take THREE hits on that slot to kill of the firepower entirely.
Now, to me, that looks like a pretty substantial advantage if its for free, especially given how much is charged for AGB as a method of saving your weapons. So, why have AGB if you are willing to give away protection for free? Sure, the AGB preserves the entire firepower, but it luck dependent. Having 3x the weapon guarantees the defense (albeit of a smaller effect each time).
But to say that there is no difference is totally not correct (unles I'm missing something here...)
This actually has no effect whatsoever, except to double the cost of every weapon.
No... go back and look at the chart. ROF 1 weapons would cost the same as they do now in the game. ROF 2 weapons would cost 33% more than they do now in the game. And ROF 3 weapons would cost 50% more than they do now in the game.
For example:
A 1/1/1 weapon costs 2.00 now, and would cost 2.00 in the formula I proposed.
A 2/1/1 weapon costs 3.00 now, and would cost 4.00 in the formula I proposed.
A 3/1/1 weapon costs 4.00 now, and would cost 6.00 in the formula I proposed.
And increasing the other stats results in the same mulitplication of cost...you havent done anything to increase the value R over P or D.
And increasing the other stats results in the same mulitplication of cost...you havent done anything to increase the value R over P or D.
I never claimed it would. It is my belief that if you simply valuate R as equal to P and D, you have conquered 90% of the problem right there.
The intention of (R+1)PD was to weight R higher than the other two. Instead, it weights P&D higher, hence the flaw in the system. So I believe he is looking for a simplified solution that does it correctly.
Ok..... I am out on this conversation, as I think I am looking at something totally different...... I was thinking that the discrepancy was that weapons with a high rof were too cheap.... where to me, the possibility of getting taken out in a single hit outweighed the cost advantage, which left us at an even playing field......
If I am understanding this conversation right, it appears that we are all going in circles saying the same things, and that our only disagreement appears to be that we are at different points of the circle, and haven't realized we are on the same track........
At this point, I am going to throw in my towel, and follow the rules, as is, unless Dan changes things..........LOL
John
Well, I think everyone agrees that the formula is buggered. The intention and the result are both crystal clear...and it doesnt match. Result actual runs completely contrary to intent.
The proposed simple solution matches result to intention, but to me, leaves another hole. Whether that hole is important enough to fix, is up to the designers.
My opinion is that if you are going to open it up and perform surgery, you might as well get all the problems (or potential problems) that can be seen.
So, whats left is whether or not some of the effects of the changed formula are problems or not. But the basic problem can be corrected by adding 1 to each P and D and dividing the mess by 2 at the end, although I believe that will still result in cheaper weapons across the board for good or bad.
Honestly if its not viewed as big problem, then I dont see changing it. Obviously a lot of people are playing and enjoying the game as is. It works as is within an expected variation. It seems that a lot of people are getting their panties in a wad over it and since its not going to be possible to please everyone anyways, I'd say just leave it as is 'officially' and let people who want to change it do so (like anything else in the system). If MJXII ever gets to doing Starmada XI, then I think it is something that definately should receive some attention.
We'll have to see how it goes..... I want the game to grow, and the only way it will do so is to have these discussions. I'll admit that I think I am confused as to where some of this went......LOL But then again, I usually only get to check the forums from work, and therefore don't have much time. I do know, that since the one player left for the military, we haven't had a problem player here......... so I am not too sure we "need" a fix in my group. At the same time, I also understand that sometimes, we have to deal with issues and cheesy players (although I have found that a lot of these players became cheesy players due to other cheesy players, and that they can be redeemed........)
I will admit that I truly did enjoy the fact that we were able to discuss this, though. The fact that Dan was willing to listen, and let us run with his game system was really awesome. I for one, really appreciate that fact that we can take his game apart, and he just goes along with it.
Thanks Again Dan
John
No... go back and look at the chart. ROF 1 weapons would cost the same as they do now in the game. ROF 2 weapons would cost 33% more than they do now in the game. And ROF 3 weapons would cost 50% more than they do now in the game.
Of course, you are right. Duh.
What I was actually trying to say was that an increase in any of the three stats changes the final value in the same way, proportionally speaking.
i.e., start with a 1/1/1 weapon, for a value of 2. Increase any of these to 2, and the value becomes 4...
The whole point (at least for me) was to ensure that an increase in ROF resulted in a proportionally larger change in the final value.
So, whats left is whether or not some of the effects of the changed formula are problems or not. But the basic problem can be corrected by adding 1 to each P and D and dividing the mess by 2 at the end, although I believe that will still result in cheaper weapons across the board for good or bad.
Actually, I don't think it will... as mentioned earlier, the average weapon under this new system will cost 83% of the average weapon under the current system, with the biggest changes in the most powerful (and therefore rarest) weapons.
Now, Starmada X was the first time that the number of weapons was not included in the defensive rating (e.g., in the past, it was (Hull + # of Weapons) x Shield Factor). IMHO, putting this back into the formula would be a better solution than complicating the weapon calculation.
It would definitely account for the "A good offense is the best defense" philosophy. 
Now, Starmada X was the first time that the number of weapons was not included in the defensive rating (e.g., in the past, it was (Hull + # of Weapons) x Shield Factor). IMHO, putting this back into the formula would be a better solution than complicating the weapon calculation.
That could work just as easily. Just as long as there is some cost associated with having a more survivable weapons outlay that is otherwise identical to the less survivable configuration.
One point of possible concern: Wouldnt figuring in the number of weapons into the calculation penalize having smaller, more specialized weapons? (like dedicated 'AA' guns and the like) Perhaps thats a good thing...I dont know, but its just something to keep an eye on if you are looking at revising the formula.
Well, you guys dicussed this fast. Just to address those who think nothing should change I would offer the following.
After my gaming group played 3 or 4 games we easily realized that they was an issue with the ROF cost. We changed it to the 2RPD thing, but that was because we were unaware of the designer's intent. We were just shooting for equality between the three as we hadn't discovered the fighter advantage yet.
When I logged on here and saw Uncle_Joe's solution, I liked it.
I can fully understand the designer wanting to keep the formula simple for hand calculations. That however doesn't really apply to us because not only to we use the different spreadsheets availble to build ships, we consider it one of the cooler things about Starmada.
Anyway, whatever is decided I'm glad to see there is ongoing discussion aimed at improvements to the game. Why stick with the same old thing when you can refine it with improvements? :wink: (Or are you still driving a Model A?)
Anyway, whatever is decided I'm glad to see there is ongoing discussion aimed at improvements to the game. Why stick with the same old thing when you can refine it with improvements? :wink: (Or are you still driving a Model A?)
No, dude... Model T is the wave of the future!
as long as everyone is happy...
for myself, the formula as is, is more than satisfactory.
(and there is no way I am going to go re-design every ship I use. nope, not gonna happen)
(and there is no way I am going to go re-design every ship I use. nope, not gonna happen)
Yup, thats the real schtick IMO. Changing the formula kind of invalidates much of the work that has been done in source material and books like Brigade, the Cold Navy stuff etc.
Again, thats why I say leave it alone for Starmada X, but do something for the next version.
Perhaps put an entry in the FAQ concerning it so that the problem is 'officially acknowledged' but fixing it will have to wait. You can then include a link for players who want it fixed to point to a revised formula (either mine or whatever thing you find you like).
Perhaps put an entry in the FAQ concerning it so that the problem is 'officially acknowledged' but fixing it will have to wait. You can then include a link for players who want it fixed to point to a revised formula (either mine or whatever thing you find you like).
I think I'd like to wait to make sure there's no other problems before I decide to make that an official problem ticket.
jim
Idea and thought time.
Dan, right now you have a relatively complex formula for dealing with Space Units, Drives, and Shields -- two of these formulae actually have exponants of 1.3 and 0.5. The resulting formulas require that a table be created that gives the final results.
Could you not use something similar here?
In other words, suppose that the formula was something like this:
1+(Rmod)*(Pmod)*(Dmod)
Where, knowing that the further from the front of the equation you get, the less overall value that particular modifier can hold (as it needs to pass all those before it to become effective)...
And so, to make things easier, you included a small chart like this:
VALUE Rmod Pmod Dmod
===== ==== ==== ====
1 1.00 1.00 1.00
2 2.46 2.30 2.14
3 4.17 3.74 3.35To show what these modifiers would be. BTW: The final result of this particular formula is:
R P D Current New
=== === === ======= =======
1 1 1 2.00 2.00
1 1 2 4.00 3.14
1 1 3 6.00 4.35
1 2 1 4.00 3.30
1 2 2 8.00 5.92
1 2 3 12.00 8.69
1 3 1 6.00 4.74
1 3 2 12.00 9.01
1 3 3 18.00 13.51
2 1 1 3.00 3.46
2 1 2 6.00 6.28
2 1 3 9.00 9.24
2 2 1 6.00 6.66
2 2 2 12.00 13.13
2 2 3 18.00 19.94
2 3 1 9.00 10.20
2 3 2 18.00 20.73
2 3 3 27.00 31.81
3 1 1 4.00 5.17
3 1 2 8.00 9.94
3 1 3 12.00 14.97
3 2 1 8.00 10.58
3 2 2 16.00 21.54
3 2 3 24.00 33.09
3 3 1 12.00 16.59
3 3 2 24.00 34.41
3 3 3 36.00 53.20Hello?
Did I kill the thread?
Damn. I hate when I do that...
No, you didn't kill the thread....
I think that most of us are still digesting all the ideas.....LOL
John
I did find a way for fighters to handle the high rof weapons....
I used the small flight option, where each flight of fighters only had 4.
To pretty much take out a flight, my oponent had to used 2 guns per flight, and I could stack flights in a hex, or I could spread them out giving me more targets in the air than he had weapons to take them out with.
I also launched my drones in small groups of 4 per round.
Finally I used a few battle satellites, to try them out, and had them spread out individually with one per hex.... meaning he may have had a rof of 3, but only the chance to hit one item.....
John
mj12games.com/forum → Starmada → ROF point-cost discussion
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.