---

Quote:

2. Photons following a tracer have a tendency to detonate prematurely. For each photon that hits, roll on the following table and apply the result, rounding down:


Roll Effect
1-2 100% Warhead Strength
3-4 50% Warhead Strength
5-6 25% Warhead Strength

---

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 04:02 pm: Edit

Sorry Captain if I inadvertantly restated a proposal of yours. I don't think this had been posted on this thread yet (and I haven't been on the boards all that long.)

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 04:11 pm: Edit

Not a problem Stephen, I wasn't aiming any angst at you, just surprise at the reception of those who embraced your scheme while they outhandidly rejected mine.

On more careful observation your proposal is an actual seperate firing mode. In contrast to mine (yielding the same effect) was just an advanced rules that would simulate the near detonation of a torp near its target, but not on its target. A sort of advanced aftereffect that would give the firer some kind of leg up for his warp expenditures.

That's why I say it was nearly the exact same thing, but not quite.

Time to get back to making myself useful.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 05:20 pm: Edit

Woooops, my apologies for the Rain-man-like syntax in my previous post.

By Bruce A. Campbell (Ltlsoup) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 07:55 pm: Edit

Lets give the fed a little better drop off on the damage. Knock the damage down by 1/3rd each bracket if you are using the tracer.

IE.
Roll Effect
1-2 100%
3-4 66%
5-6 33%

Here is another take on the tracer. Apply the prox. photon targeting unit and standard photon warp power to the probe launcher and use the probe as your tracer device.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 08:31 pm: Edit

Part of the reason I went with 100/50/25 instead of 100/66/33 is that photons, generally being 8, 16, or 4 point warheads lend themselves to divison by 2 or 4 rather than 3.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Monday, March 11, 2002 - 08:50 pm: Edit

My largest problem with Stephen's rule is that it requres an extra die roll per torpedo.

IMHO, any new mode is going to have to pass the following tests:

1) Optimum average damage is no better than firing the optimum of standard, prox or OL torps, regardless of the range. Ideally it would have a marginally lower average at most ranges (ie trading potential damage for a smaller variance).

2) Test 1) is met for all classes of ships/any number of torpedoes (including things like BT that have 8+ photons).

3) As simple as the DERFACS rules.

4) Needs to be useable/used on a regular basis, otherwise, why bother adding it?

Even after meeting these conditions, I'm not sure that letting the photon avoid the total wiff risk is good. That is part of what defines its weaknesses (ie the enemy always has the option of going in and gambling that all the phtons will miss with a decent odds).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 08:19 am: Edit

Before any real "solution" to the photon problem can be settled on, I think it's best that everyone agree on

1) what problems we're trying to solve
2) how best to solve it in a REASONABLE fashion.

I know photons are less accurate than disruptors because they don't suffer damage reduction over range. Making them less accurate is the trade for that, and part of the game. But, I do agree that at certain range categories, the photon is so bad as to be nearly useless. I've jokingly heard the photon called "the wonder weapon...fire it, and wonder why." As far as I can see, the biggest problem is with standard photons at ranges 5-8. At that range, all types of photons have the same 50% chance to hit. I understand it for proximities...you want them to be best at longer ranges. I also get it for overloads...they should be best at shorter ranges.

So, I'd suggest this. Make the standard photon UIM compatible, but only at range 5-8. That gives the photon a 16% increase in accuracy at that range. Still not as good as a disruptor, which keeps the balance in play, but does improve on the photon to a modest degree. I'm sure someone can figure out a technobabble reason for it, as I know it doesn't make "sense" for the UIM to not work in other ranges or with proximities and overloads. But for game balance purposes, I think that gives the photon a needed boost with no complicated rules to deal with. I like the tracer idea but I also like to keep it simple, when we can.

All that being said, I don't think SVC is going to budge on this, unless perhaps for 2X rules where a change is warranted and deserved.

By Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 09:01 am: Edit

Just a note: I didn't and don't intend the Tracer Photon firing mode to be an improvement. It's supposed to be an added tactical option that is useful in a small set of circumstances but detrimental in general use. Looking back at the first two revisions I can see that this goal wasn't accomplished (the advantages gained were not outweighed by the drawbacks in most situations). So is the Tracer needed? No, but I believe it makes an interesting extra tactical option for the pre-refit (photon and phaser, no or limited drones) Federation ships. Later Fed ships are far more flexible in combat (better phaser arcs and more phasers, G-Racks, fighters) and while they might retain the ability to use tracers would less find themselves in a situation where it would be advantageous to do so.

Unless you anticipate needing to guarantee, or better the to hit chance at least, a moderate damage hit during EA and have a standard or proximity torpedo arming you won't have the chance to take a tracer shot and flying around with a tracer held means that you are voluntarily reducing your overall firepower on the chance that the tracer will be needed,

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 02:29 pm: Edit

David Kass (Dkass); that's not a new argument, nor even one that holds a lot of merit. If you recall the "Fix the Feds" thread the anti-photon folks were decrying the same thing, and always qualified their statistical arguments with the catch phrase "Now, if you HIT....." Which was the whole point of trying to improve/fix the photon in the first place.

Point 2) I believe this rule meets that.

Point 3) The complexity, to my mind, and within reason, shouldn't weigh too heavily. The game is afterall about giving added complexity to players.

Point 4) How often do you use enveloping plasmas? Suicide Hellbores? ATG drones?
Mike; I think those two questions have already been defined. And like SVC said, the rules need to be emersed in some kind of physical reality, and not just created out of some loophole not covered by the rules.

As for the rest of it, the "average damage" argument is an old one and misleading, as many of us tried to demonstrate on the old "Fix the Feds" thread.

By Robert Cole (Zathras6) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Suicide Hellbores? OH GOD! Noooooooooo!

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Tuesday, March 12, 2002 - 03:35 pm: Edit

Crap, I meant fusion beams

By Alan Bloniarz (Madmax) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 10:36 am: Edit

The original idea was brilliant in its simplicity and effectiveness. The ONLY ammendment should be that the photon has to be designated as a tracer during EA just like a prox torp is.

I see no reason why this tech cannot be limited to just the feds--the precedent for how it works and why it's limited to the feds is there in the feedback damage associated with the photon.

I see no reason why the klinks would even want this if it were offered to them. Why take a voluntary reduction in damage potential just to gain the CHANCE of increased heavy weapons accuracy when your heavy weapons are already reliably accurate? The feds NEED this technology--the klinks do not. In fact, if I were the feds I'd invent the technology and give it to the klinks for free hoping they'd use it 'against' me.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 05:23 pm: Edit

Alan, there's no precedent for its function, particularly, as SVC said, the targets are moving at FTL speeds. Read what SVC said about it so you can understand better his position.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:09 pm: Edit

George,

I don't understand your reply to my first test (and note they're just my opinion of what the rule needs to meet). My point is that statistically, the new mode should not produce more damage, either as an average or as a maximum (the latter since it should increase the minimum--or at least decrease the odds of all misses occurring).

None of the rules I've seen meets the second test. Anything per ship won't work unless even at 8 photons (I think that's the maximum number on a single unit) the agregate statistical result is no better than firing the optimum normal photon armament.

I suspect that the amount of complexity is going to be a subjective measure...

As far as suicide fusions, I probably use them 1/3 of the battles where I have pure fusion armed ships (I do tend to include some in my fleets, so it isn't as big of a restriction as it might sound). I use ATG in almost every non-tournament battle involving drone using forces. I use evelopping plasma in maybe half my plasma battles.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:32 pm: Edit

Re: Average Damage Increase.

I actually don't have a problem with Average damage being increased through the use of the Tracer Torp.

Indeed the Tracer Torp should allow for increased average damage.

The Reason being that Klingon UIM + ECM drone combos yield lesser average damage for the Fed and thus if increasing the Average damage is enough to counter that effect(s) then it's a good rule.

ECM drones effect all weapons fire not just the Disruptors.

I would therefore recommend that photon tracers grant some number of ECCM for all weapons fire rather than a -1 to the die roll.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, March 13, 2002 - 09:46 pm: Edit

George,

I'm curious about your "fix the feds" argument. Are you saying that photons are not statistically inferior to disruptors? While it doesn't bother me per se, I do believe they are. It's not a flaw in the game or anything, but to say that photons are not inferior to disruptor in terms of the raw ability to do damage is not true. Yes, they have more crunch power. Yes, the damage they do doesn't degrade over range. But the rapid fire of disruptors coupled with better chances to hit makes them superior weapons in most cases.

Now, I didn't just decide this on a whim. To find out if this was true, I decided to go to an impartial judge. I sent all the data to a physics professor I know in New York, and asked him a simple question: In terms of the ability to do damage, which of these is better? The photon, or the range 30 disruptor? He answered with a nice statistical analysis. I won't spend bandwidth arguing the details, but if you want to see it, feel free to visit my website...it's all posted there.

http://www.geocities.com/raperm2002/photondebate

For what its worth, I think photons are pretty good as they are. They have a certain flavor, and that crunch power is pretty sweet. I do wish they were a bit more accurate, especially given the narrow firing arc and crappy turn modes of most fed ships, but I can live with them as they are. I think the tracer idea has merit...whether the powers that be think so is another story, and is certainly within their rights to decide.

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:05 am: Edit

David, well then what's the point of tinkering with the photon, if you're not going to accept an improvement in performance? The whole point is to improve the weapon in some way, shape or form. Essentially you're stating that you'd consider a new firing mode as long as it doesn't change anything. But to be fair, by definition, a single photon volley will not increase the average damage as this is a fixed number. But it will improve the frequency upon which that damage (whatever it is) is scored. For a turn, no the new firing mode will not boost the "average damage", for an entire game it has the possibility of doing just this.
SVC; you are getting sleepy.......very sleepy...
Mike; D'oh! I meant that those who oppose the improvement of photons utilize the Average Damage argument to justify their opinion for no change.
....you will change the photon....yes, you MUST change the photon...
It's been my opinion that photons are fine in pre and early GW eras. However, they start to show their age in mid to late war as other races start to get tech improvements.
...you realize the error of your ways ... the photon must evolve!
The Average Damage crowd says this will unbalance things because the Feds (and Orions and Thols) will be able to deal out more damage, and thus win battles easier. That verse the poor Disruptor and Plasma races who supposidly won't be able to handle a photon improvement.
...and you'll also bring back the Exodrone...

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 12:56 am: Edit

George, I'd be willing to give photons an improvement. Just not an improvement in average damage. Instead I'm thinking an improvement through flexibility. Basically, give the photon a mode where it has less variance, but the same (or lower) mean damage. It won't be as prone to completely wiff, but also won't be as prone to jackpot. Thus if the tactical situation dicatates that wiffing is worse than jackpotting, the player has an option. For example, a Fed CA has 4 OL photons, but there is a PF just about to cross to a down shield at range 8. ~25 points is enough to crush the PF, thus scoring the average of 32 would plenty, but the Fed has the ~30% to hit with 1 or less (and fail) since it also has the same ~30% chance to hit with 3 or 4 (for overkill). A mode that gave only 10% of doing 16 points or less, but only had a 10% chance of doing 48 or more would be useful.

An example of a rule that would, more or less, satisfy my criteria is (no technobabble given):

If selected in EA, a photon can be fired in double mode. Each photon is actually fired as two baby-photons. Roll two dice (one for each baby-photon). Each that hits does half the warhead damage.

Much less likely to score signficantly below average damage, but also less likely to score signficantly above average damage.

I'm not advocating this rule (my guess, without any playtest, is that it is too powerful).

I am of the opinion that the Photon and Disruptor are balanced weapons when the entire context is taken into account. Under all conditions (if anything the photon is advantaged without EW, but I don't play that enought to know fo sure). I understand some disagree with this opinion (and I don't want to re-start this debate yet again). Mike R, I noticed that the analysis you have written up did not include the effects of UIM burnout, nor the limited number of UIM most ships carry. It is actually significant in such a comparison. Also, its hard to tell (and the use of a polynomial fit as opposed to a step function or discrete points doesn't help), but I don't think the Disruptor OL and Disruptor OL/UIM are identical for ranges 0-2, but they should be.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 01:13 am: Edit

George,

Ah! I see. I'm used to hearing the reverse most of the time.

David, it does and doesn't. Since the damage is averaged over one turn, a UIM burnout doesn't matter. All he poses is that with UIM, a disruptor is much superior to a photon torpedo. I pretty much agree with you that photons are okay as is, but that I wouldn't consider a change to be a game-altering, balance crushing event. The "two minis" idea is interesting...have you tried it yet?

By Captain Ebersole (George_Ebersole) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:10 am: Edit

David; in regards to your first paragraph, this is essentially the gap pro photon reform types, like myself, have been trying to fill. But like Mike said, I don't want to rehash the whole debate. I'll note however that any additional damage added to the aggregate over a game will boost the average, no matter how small that number is. Thus any improvement will boost the average. That's just the nature of the beast.

My old proposal was similar to Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield)'s proposal, in that a photon that missed would have a chance to deliver a fractional yield by the fact that it detonated near, but not on, its target. The percentages of my old "Near Miss" chart are essentially the same as Fairfield's, and very much in line with your DP proposal. The only reason I bring it up is because I think this general path (the variations of the same theme proposed by all of us) is one of the few viable avenues, if any, for fixing or improving the photon.

Brainstorming here; I think Stephen W. Fairfield (Sfairfield)'s proposal, from the reality that's posed in the game's fiction, needs to be a multiturned affair to be effective. That is, as someone mentioned earlier on, tracers are used to guide fire to a target. To my mind a single photon is not enough to do the job, just as a single tracer in a magazine would not be enough to guide the fire of a contemporary fireteam. I think perhaps a series of photons (say three photons; one every 20 impulses or so) might be enough to yield somekind of "to hit" advantage. Thus mimicking the effect that real tracers give to today's military. Whether this would effect a single ship or an entire fleet is up for grabs.

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:10 am: Edit

Ignoring the UIM burnout is only correct on the first firing turn of the game. At that point, the photon should be counted as full damage (since it will be armed--unless at WS-0 or WS-I which doesn't usually occur at firing ranges) and is thus superior to the disruptor by a factor of ~2! In any other case, the averaging is over multiple turns, and just like the photon, the disruptor damage has to be reduced by the turns it cannot fire.

As I mentioned, I haven't tried the two mini idea at all (it came from a simple exercise in reducing variance while not changing the average...).

By David Kass (Dkass) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 02:23 am: Edit

George, Actually my proposal does not change the average damage at all. It will be identical:

Consider 1 (standard) photon (at range 8, for simiplicity):
normal fire: 50% 8 damage 50% 0 damage; average = 4 damage
double fire: 25% 8 damage 50% 4 damage 25% 0 damage; average = 4 damage.
Old proposal: 50% 8 damage 16.67% 4 damage 33.3% 0 damage; average = 4.67 damage (I think this is your old proposal, if miss by 1, do half damage).

Thus the double fire mode still has the same average damage (but a higher probability of doing some damage). And it will do so regardless of the range/warhead/EW situation. On the other hand, your old proposal increases the average damage. I, personally, think that any proposal that does so (at any range) is a very dangerous place to go.

I apologize if I mis characterized your old proposal--it isn't listed anymore and I don't recall exactly what it was.

By Eric Stork (Merchant) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:15 am: Edit

SPP: I retract my previous question because I failed to keep my promise never to speak of TOS again. Sorry.

By David A Slatter (Davidas) on Thursday, March 14, 2002 - 08:46 am: Edit

Does Anyone here play with EW - without it, the mathmatical analysis above is fundamentally flawed. I'm VERY happy to shoot at R8 if I have no shift against me.
Just suppose, then, that you are shooting with an DD in your fleet that can't afford more than 3ECCM.

R30 - EW 2 shift (DSR enemy will probably be doing erratic manoevers as photons have the advantage at 30).

Currently, the tracer torps are useless as they cannot hit. Let's supposed you can do a tracer prox proton. Hits on 1 for 2 damage. if it hits, other photons then hit on 1-2 for 4 damage.

Average damage with tracer = 2 7/18
Average damage without tracer = 2 2/3

Basically, the tracer is so unlikely to hit that it's not worth spending the photon to gamble on the 1/6 chance that it helps. This applies for any situation when the photon only hits on a 1. However, I do note that the subsequent photons would be held if the tracer misses, thus there can be no direct comparison.

R12 - Here, we would probably only have a 1-shift (enemy will be firing DSR). We use a Prox tracer (hits 1-3) and then follow it up with Proxes (hit 1-4 or 1-3).

Av. Damage using tracer = 7.5
Av. Damage not using tracer = 8.

of course, prox tracer should probably lose all of its warhead, so it compares even worse than the above calculations.

Now, let's go to the critical R8 with a 1-shift. Standard tracer hits on 1-2, allowing photons to hit on 1-3 if it hits.

Av. damage using tracer is 8 4/9
Av. damage no tracer is 10 2/3


Basically, then tracer is useless because as you become less likely to hit, the tracer also becomes less likely to hit, and thus you are less likely to get any benefit from it. If anything, it makes your damage more like narrow salvoes rather than giving you a more averaged, but lower damage.

Any tactical advantage you may gain from only firing other photons if your tracer hits is more or less nullified by the fact that you just wasted a photon. Better to wait and use your power to compete with EW.

Maybe a DN, with 5 other photons to benefit from the tracer, may use this, but frigates, most in need when EW is cranked up, will be seriously shafted as they only have 2 photons.

So, I would have to try an alternative proposal in the next post.