It is currently Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:41 pm


Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

Tell the world your Dropfleet related trials and tribulations!
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 12:16 pm

Indeed. It does 2 DP 5 times out of 6 and the rest of the time it does 0.

For the Disintegrator, it has the highest probability of doing 0-3 damage with the most likely result being 1.67, which in the real world is 2DP.

In terms of practicality it works out pretty much the same.

I understand the tools you're using to predict likely results and:

A) In this case it was not needed and seemed to me a way to "baffle with science" to win an (Fairly pointless and thread disrupting) argument.

B) 1.7 is as good as 2 when we're dealing with 6 sided dice where integers are of no real practical relevance. Perhaps the argument could be made that over the course of 6 turns that 0.34 may stack up but I doubt it does to any measurable practical effect, given the nature of probability and low sample sizes.

C) Whilst it is a low chance to do 4-6 damage with a Disintegrator it has more of a chance than a partical lance, which has 0.00 chance. A much higher chance than the light broadside straw man doing 12 damage that I had thrown at me earlier but still a fairly low chance. I understand that and thought I'd made it pretty clear that was the case.

So, now we all know that stats are useful but have their limitations and that I was right about the relative damage dealing performance of a 2+ Granite and an Emerald, could we please get back to the broader discussion?
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2434
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 3:03 pm

Stompzilla wrote:A) In this case it was not needed and seemed to me a way to "baffle with science" to win an (Fairly pointless and thread disrupting) argument.


He tried to explain it to you as you did not appear to understand the subject and still fail to do so. Why do you antagonise people for making the effort to calculate these numbers, type them in and trying to explain them to you? If you dislike "Mathhammering" fine just say so. However it is rather silly to blame people for posting correct and factual numbers, in context since the discussion was about that topic. :roll:

1.7 is as good as 2 when we're dealing with 6 sided dice where integers are of no real practical relevance.


:cry: Out of curiosity would you argue the same for 1,5? And what about 1,49? Would you for comparing a 3+ and a 2+ roll (both are more likely to succeed then to fail)?

C) Whilst it is a low chance to do 4-6 damage with a Disintegrator it has more of a chance than a partical lance, which has 0.00 chance. A much higher chance than the light broadside straw man doing 12 damage that I had thrown at me earlier but still a fairly low chance.


One line above you dismiss the reasoning due to low sample sizes, know you focus on unlikely events but dismiss other unlikely events. By your line of though even a light broadside has a higher then 0 chance to inflict 5-12DP why is this not a feature for you if you praise it in another scenario? Since you dismiss a roughly 15% damage difference as "no real pratical relevance" I assume numbers have nothing to do with it (which as stated I think are pointless to discuss with you), so what has?

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 3:18 pm

That first part was aimed at you! You're the one who's taken us down this insane rabbit hole of maths purism, rather than just admitting that a 2+Granite is shit and the proposed rules change is better.

How do I do 1.67 of a damage point again Lorn?

It's 1 or 2 DP most of the time with the odds favouring 2 more than 1. It's not rocket science.

Because the chance of doing 12 DP is negligible with a light broadside. Jesus man. How is this so hard.

Clearly 1.5 is harder to call but I'd probably err on the side of caution and expect 1 DP.
Offline

Lorn

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 2434
  • Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:48 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 3:54 pm

Stompzilla wrote:That first part was aimed at you! You're the one who's taken us down this insane rabbit hole of maths purism, rather than just admitting that a 2+Granite is shit and the proposed rules change is better.


You mean I dared to argue with maths against your point of view and experiences? And listed the issues a linked Granite would have?

I fear in regards to the Granite we have different goals, I want to simply improve it from the current state not to make it the to go Cruiser for standard order damage.

Frankly nearly all damage dealing ships compete with each other and major improvements to a currently under performing ship simply risk making others obsolete (like the Turquoise and the Obsidian in this case), secondly it would make the ship a bot to easy to handle. Lastly you don´t even know the price tag you would give to a Granite with linked Lances. Making a comparison which version is stronger moot.

German space magic for PHR would you like to know more?
http://www.hawkforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=7017

German space magic for all and this time it is in Space!
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=10506
Offline

Stompzilla

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 2:34 pm
  • Location: Manchester, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 7:02 pm

You know what, if it'll make you stop, then yes, you win at maths. All hail the mighty master of probability.

Meanwhile back in the real world I'll pick up my dice to shoot my Emerald knowing that despite having a wider variance of possible results compared to a 2+ lock Granite, (some of which are positive and some negative) that I'll probably do 2 damage.

I do actually agree with the actual arguments you've made below though.

A linked Granite would need to go up in points but a 2+ Granite would never be seen, making changing it a bit pointless.

You're probably correct that Particle Cannons will either stay junk or push something else out. Of the changes so far suggested, Linked with a decent chunk of points added (Maybe as many as 10-20 pts easily) strikes me as the one most likely to put Granites on the table. The Turquoise rarely makes my fleet these days anyhow. The range is too short and the bombardment not really good enough.

A couple more shots on the Bombardment would probably keep it from being squeezed out.

One issue not really addressed with this doc is how hugely over priced pretty much all UCM ships are! Going from playing Scourge and Shaltari to starting UCM is a real eye opener. Why are UCL paying 163 pts for what amounts to a slow, crap Amber? 132 for a Seattle is a joke!
Offline
User avatar

Gauntlet

  • Posts: 318
  • Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 6:43 pm
  • Location: Salem, MA, USA

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 8:01 pm

Regarding the Errata

I dislike #4... it removes a small tactic that isn't broken or unbalanced. So all it does is punish a thoughtful player. Having ships in multiple orbital layers isn't super useful, and there are already targeting penalties between layers, so I don't see the need to punish the tactic further.

I also don't like #5. Currently bombers are seen as somewhat weak, so further nerfing them isn't going to help. I suspect you were trying to reward players who dove into the debris field since the fields now affect players on rounds where they STAY in the debris as well... but I just don't see it as a need.

Everything else seems pretty reasonable to me, though not all of them seem necessary. For example, I think cost reductions or such would be simpler for the St Pete. The San Francisco and other troop ships could do with more hull points... but it is all about taste for these little tweaks.

I'm surprised no one is talking about close action frigates... I find that they are a little too good in most factions, and I think a pretty soft cap on them, like limiting their groups to 4 instead of 6, might be good.


Love that you put in the thought and time to post this, thanks!
Offline

Intruder313

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:36 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostWed Feb 28, 2018 11:03 pm

The Tournament Pack link is no longer valid.

Experimental Rules: I'll only comment on General and UCM as I've never played with or against Scourge or Shaltari.

General
1. Debris Fields: I'd revise this to 'OR ends their turn in the debris field'. This wording maintains the current rule of 'only roll once per debris field per turn' but stops people parking in Debris and hiding with impunitiy.

2. Torpedoes: Other than adding Flash I think they are fine as they are and don't like these changes. Adding Particle actually implies they are particle weapons (which are only used by Shaltari): I know the intent is to simply use the mechanic, but I still think the fluff should inform the mechanics.

3. Torpedoes v Debris: Maybe, I'm more inclined to agree they should ignore Fine Debris (matches their description). Dense debris I'm less sure about. Or maybe Torpedoes should just be considered to have 2 Hull....

4. Layer Coherency: seems fairly reasonable but I still think it's more faff than it's worth.

5. Bombers and Dense Debris: I don't agree with this. in addition to the stages of Attack v PD and Armour Saves, the Bombers can be reduced by Shaking Off and Debris without increasing the risk from Debris further. Also, why was this only for Bombers and not Fighters? Another difference we would need to remember!

UCM
1. Siphon Power: The extra die is reasonable but Bloom for one Laser rather than two just does not make sense to me.

2. Linked UF-4200s: This is stepping on PHR toes but also because UCM have very favourable fire arcs this would make this too good I feel: it's far easier in the early Turns to catch targets in front and to the side than it is for PHR to get into a position to fire out of opposing sides (usually Turn 3 onwards).

3. San Francisco CAW: maybe, it's clearly a Cruiser Hull not a Light Cruiser. Points might have to increase a touch though?

4. Santiago CAW: Maybe. I'm wary of this as it means that, on average, each Corvette will roll Crippling Damage output for a non-PHR Strike Carrier every round (pre Armour of course!). As it stands now Corvettes already sit and pick off Strike Carriers with near-impunity, safe in the knowledge that almost nothing but another nearby Corvette can reliably attack them. I'm hoping there are proper 'Submarine Hunter' Destroyers coming as the whole Atmospheric Camping element spoils the game for me....
Offline

will

  • Posts: 24
  • Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:42 pm

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Mar 01, 2018 12:05 pm

New link to the tournament pack (yoinked off facebook)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kdenkzyfi6axh8e/RedWarSoc Tournament Pack v1.4.pdf?dl=0

I'll try and get Matt to update the OP with a working link
Offline

Nobody

  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2014 2:25 am

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm

Intruder313 wrote:The Tournament Pack link is no longer valid.

Experimental Rules: I'll only comment on General and UCM as I've never played with or against Scourge or Shaltari.

General
1. Debris Fields: I'd revise this to 'OR ends their turn in the debris field'. This wording maintains the current rule of 'only roll once per debris field per turn' but stops people parking in Debris and hiding with impunitiy.

2. Torpedoes: Other than adding Flash I think they are fine as they are and don't like these changes. Adding Particle actually implies they are particle weapons (which are only used by Shaltari): I know the intent is to simply use the mechanic, but I still think the fluff should inform the mechanics.

3. Torpedoes v Debris: Maybe, I'm more inclined to agree they should ignore Fine Debris (matches their description). Dense debris I'm less sure about. Or maybe Torpedoes should just be considered to have 2 Hull....

4. Layer Coherency: seems fairly reasonable but I still think it's more faff than it's worth.

5. Bombers and Dense Debris: I don't agree with this. in addition to the stages of Attack v PD and Armour Saves, the Bombers can be reduced by Shaking Off and Debris without increasing the risk from Debris further. Also, why was this only for Bombers and not Fighters? Another difference we would need to remember!

UCM
1. Siphon Power: The extra die is reasonable but Bloom for one Laser rather than two just does not make sense to me.

2. Linked UF-4200s: This is stepping on PHR toes but also because UCM have very favourable fire arcs this would make this too good I feel: it's far easier in the early Turns to catch targets in front and to the side than it is for PHR to get into a position to fire out of opposing sides (usually Turn 3 onwards).

3. San Francisco CAW: maybe, it's clearly a Cruiser Hull not a Light Cruiser. Points might have to increase a touch though?

4. Santiago CAW: Maybe. I'm wary of this as it means that, on average, each Corvette will roll Crippling Damage output for a non-PHR Strike Carrier every round (pre Armour of course!). As it stands now Corvettes already sit and pick off Strike Carriers with near-impunity, safe in the knowledge that almost nothing but another nearby Corvette can reliably attack them. I'm hoping there are proper 'Submarine Hunter' Destroyers coming as the whole Atmospheric Camping element spoils the game for me....


Even after the buff to 4200s, it’s likely the only ships using them instead of primary armaments would be Madrids (and it’d slightly buff San Franciscos). Every other ship has much stronger primary armaments. The only time they’d normally even consider firing them now is in a Weapons Free order.

An arguement might be made for the battleships (especially the New York), but given they’re universally considered weak options already...
Offline

Scoundrel13

Hawk Talon

  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:08 am
  • Location: Worcestershire, UK

Re: Experimental Errata and new Tournament Pack

PostThu Mar 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Thanks to all feedback so far! updated links here and at the first post:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ko6yzniux5bxm ... 1.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7ael6ry86ibj ... 5.pdf?dl=0

I have removed the rule about unshakeable Torpedoes.

Added rules for boosting PHR battery and broadside weapons!

Tidying up of wording in lots of places: Granite, debris fields, etc.

If we continue to get feedback about the Launch/Dense Debris rule and Orbital Coherency rule, I may remove these too. The Orbital coherency stemmed from logic: The ships would be miles apart vertically, but I understand the argument that defensive measures shouldn't be punished. The launch/Debris rule was after seeing the power of heavy PHR Launch lists in our meta. Extra defence against that seemed needed!

Please test these in real games, and keep giving us feedback, rather than a long argument about maths. Take that to PM, please.
Last edited by Scoundrel13 on Sun Mar 04, 2018 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests