Re: [GZG] a peek from FT3 on fighters/ordnance (was: Re: FT:XD changes, part 1)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Tue, May 4,
2010 at 1:54 PM, Eric Foley <stiltman@teleport.com> wrote:

>  I'm assuming 1 mass and 3 cost for a PDS as before.	The ADS is... 3
> mass, 9 cost?  2 and 6?  I actually didn't like these very much in FT2
> partly because they were just so much more expensive than PDAFs for
not that
> much extra benefit, and if PDS is able to do a shorter-ranged area
defense
> mode I don't know if it's really going to be worth it for ADS.
>
We don't have all the mass/costs worked out in detail. I have been
working
with PDS as per FB rules, and ADS as per ADFC. We would love Oerjan to
break
away from everything on his plate and measure in with balancing numbers
on
these and other systems. :-)

If a fighter attacks another ship within 6 MU, do you shoot at the
fighter
> as though it's in the same position as the ship or where it came out
before
> it attacked?
>
Same position as the ship. Fighters and ordnance move to base-to-base
contact with their targets.

>
> Are we then effectively... what, multiplying the effect against plasma
> bolts by 6 here?  Three shots at 33% chance of hitting instead of one
shot
> at 16.6% chance?  I suppose plasma _was_ probably overpowered against
PDS
> though.
>
>
>
> The CIDS... hard to say.  I could see that going a lot of different
ways in
> terms of what could happen out of that.  I do think that it probably
should
> stay 5/10/15%, although I'm thinking 4x or even 5x mass cost just at
the
> initial eyeball reaction.  It also would potentially be a bit of a
tradeoff;
> smaller ships would probably rather have it, much larger ships might
rather
> just have the same mass of PDS.
>
As with everything, there are trade-offs. I haven't tried min-maxing
things
yet. Just trying to play the systems and see how they feel.

> I'll set up a game or three with my co-workers at the studio and see
what
> we wind up with.
>

Would greatly appreciate that!

Mk