RE: Game 796

["Izenberg, Noam" <Noam.Izenberg@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>>Exactly. The two are mathematically identical. But they _feel_  different. 
>>To me at least... They are exactly the same _effects_.

>Not only do they have the same *effects*; to the captain (player) they are 
>exactly the same *report*: "We need to get closer to be able to hurt them". 
>At the moment, FTJava doesn't tell the player that *at all*.

I don't disagree that one way or another, this kind of information should be included.

> >against Stealth-1 targets your weapons fire as if the range is 20% 

>>Yes. This mathematically identical to saying that Beam range bands go
>>from 12 MU to 10 vs. stealth 1, and to 8 vs. stealth 2.

>And presenting the effective range instead of letting the players work it 
>out in their heads is MUCH, MUCH easier to handle for those players who - 
>unlike you and me - have *not* played Stealthed ships for several years 
>already.

Someone who is unused to stealth could also, very easily look at the map, which shows his ship 16 MU from a stealth ship, and the range, which shows the effective range of 24 and go "huh?" Unless as laserlight (?) suggested actual _and_ effective range were reppresented (which would still have a "huh?" factor to it, but one that could be learned (as could the effeective range band display).

> The vast majority of FTJava players are only used to the *standard* set of 
> range bands. For them it is much easier to see "effective range is 25.5 - ...

I'll agree that if the computer does the effective range band calculation for you, this is the easier approach.

>>It is easier at the game table to divide _measured_
>>range to target by 8 than it is to multiply it by 1.5 and then divide
>>by 12.

>This is true in FTF gaming where the player would have to do the 
>multiplication by 1.5 *himself*, but in FTJava *the computer does that for 
>him*. That leaves only the "divide by 12" part for the player to handle, 
>and that is something he's done numerous times already in his standard FT 
>games - it's not something he has to think hard about.

>Dividing by 8 however is *not* something most FT players do automatically. 
>How, then, is dividing by 8 in your head easier for the player than having 
>*the computer* multiply by 1.5 after which the player can apply the same 
>old standard 12mu range bands he's always used?

I can see that. I still think that, even for the novice, FTF would be easier to 
divide actual range by 8. You have to either remember and do (Range*1.5/12)
or (Range/8) at the table, and there's no way you can convince me the former is
easier than the latter - *at the table*. You _can_ convince me that it is more reasonable
in FT Java since the Range*1.5 is doable by the computer.

>>I disagree. At range 11 you're in B2 range against both a standard
>>hull and stealth 2. But you're in RB1 vs. standard, and RB2 vs
>>stealth. You still have to know your range bands.

>And if you've played Full Thrust for more than two or three games, you KNOW 
>that the beam range bands are 12mu. When you've played FT that much (or 
>little), it is already trivial for you to see that range 11 is inside the 
>first beam range band and that range 16.5 (the effective range against 
>Stealth-2) is in the second beam range band.

I could also say that if you've played with LR-Torps more than 2 or 3 times, you're used to 9 MU bands, Grasers, 18 MU bands, Placed marker weapons 24 or 36 MU ranges. And By the time you've gotten used to getting used to different range bands. This is not to say that 12 and 6 won't still be the most intuitive in FT, so your point still stands.

> It is much harder to 1) figure out which of three possible range band 
> lengths to use and 2) apply that range band length to the actual range.

As opposed to 1) figuring out what range multiplier to use and 2) applying that multiplier (which is fractional multiplication for any stealth) to the actual range.
At the table, we're going to have to agree to disagree about which is easier. In FTJ, I'm more willing to concede. 

>>If you insist on making the effective range by multiplying the stealth 
>>factor, first
>>you end up with a decimal range (16.5)

>Bullshit. 

Well, not exactly Bullshit, but your point about why it is irrelevant is well taken.

>>This can indeed be solved by either modifying the
>>range to be a longer "effective range", or by using an "effective
>>range band" display like I outlined.

>Using an "effective range band display" does NOT tell you that firing at 
>that particular ship *will be* affected. All it tells you is what the 
>effect would be *if* that particular ship happens to be stealthed.

The way I was thinking about that display was that it _would_ reflect the range bands for that specific target (*accounting for steath*)  from the fireng ship.

So if a ship has a choice of Target 1 (standard) and Target 2 (stealth 2) both at range 16, the range band display would show

F CA Target1 17 [2/5-3-2/1]
F CA Target2 17 [3/X-5-3/2]

I would, in the end, have little objection to a display that said

F CA Target1 17/17
F CA Target2 17/26


>>However, 1) adding the "out of range" flag for stealth affected systems is 
>>probably more important,

>>2) the "effective range band display" is more informative,

>I don't think so. More confusing, yes; but confusion almost invariably 
>*reduces* the amount of information relayed.

Eh. We'll have to disagree there, too.

>>and 3) modifying the range number is potentially additionally
>>misleading; For example, I sometimes use these range numbers to help
>>me plot my next movement phase. If they get modified, that utility
>>goes away.

>You use the *targetting ranges* to plot the next movement phase, rather 
>than the ghost plots etc. in the map window?

I use both at times. 

>Personally I'd much rather have the targetting window optimized for 
>*targetting* instead of attempting to optimize it for *movement plots* <shrug>


I like using all the tools at my disposal, no matter where they are. Even better would be a utility for highlighting ghost-plotted ships and showing the range between them during movement orders. But I'm not going to ask for that until I learn to code Java myself.





textfilter: ignored an application/ms-tnef part called winmail.dat