Pinning does not prevent a position from leaving combat. A pinned position however has to run the gauntlet in order to escape.
This effectively means that the pinning position gets free attacks and all other positions targeting the pinned position gets some degree of free attacks. These are all treated between rounds and so are on top of normal events during the battle.
The pinned position cannot fire back (whole hoard of reasons – engines in line of sight, energy usage, random manoeuvring but most importantly Game Balance).
The current suggestion is that the pinning position gets four rounds of fire.
All other positions that have locked the pinned position will get a proportion of their attacks based on the fraction of locked targets.
Further, the number of rounds of fire will be dependent of the relative speeds of the targeting and locked and pinned position.
Targeting position is stationery – 1 round
Targeting position is slower – 2 rounds
Targeting position is equal to or faster – 3 rounds
The ramifications are that a poxy little ship with armed with a toothpick is simply not a threat and four rounds of fire is nothing to worry about.
A slow but heavily armoured ship will be able to walk out of most combats intact.
Normal and lighter hulled ships will rarely be able to withstand three and four rounds of fire.
The above is not applied to successful fleeing, i.e. dump cargo and superior speed will not result in running the gauntlet.
Will there be an extra "Flee if not pinned" option?
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Jun 10 2005, 08:11 AM) |
| Targeting position is stationery – 1 round |
Does "stationary" mean that the ship no longer has any combat thrust?
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Jun 10 2005, 08:11 AM) |
| The ramifications are that a poxy little ship with armed with a toothpick is simply not a threat and four rounds of fire is nothing to worry about. |
But the poxy little ship can still be used to pin a ship while the heavy warships target it - and they are a threat?
I don't have a lot of combat experience but isn't this mostly the case now? The pinner doesn't do any damage, it just stops the ship leaving while the heavy hitters pound it. The proposals would seem to give the pinned ship more chance to escape (without having to E-jump) but the free rounds of fire (which will usually be 2 or 3 rounds) by the heavy hitters against the leaving ship would seem to cancel out any difference?
Now though a question, say a ship sets to leave combat. The free rounds will follow after the move order. What if the engines/crew/whatever else would stop it moving are destroyed during the free rounds, would the movement fail, or would we just assume "momentum" or some such and let it still escape?
1) When Phoenix was started, there was no pinning.
2) Then people complained that they could not effectively force retreating enemies into combat, making pirate raids impossible but also diminishing the value of overkill fleets.
3) Following up on these complaints, Pinning was introduced which would prevent slower ships from disengaging.
4) Then people again complained, this time because the change meant there was no way to save the pinned ship from destruction (except sending in relief ships which would take revenge, but not actually save the attacked ship unless the attacker would retarget or clear his target lock).
5) This prompted yet another new rule to be patched on the new rule: Emergency jumping.
6) People were unsatisfied with emergency jumping as it had too many drawbacks. This prompted further proposals such as Chaff which were not even implemented yet...
The proposal that has been put forward removes the very essence of pinning, that being to hold the pinned ship in combat. People *wanted* this rule. Now it's literally being patched to death, increasing the complexity of the game for nil net gain - that being no Pinning.
Could people please decide first on wether or not they want Pinning, and (only) if Yes, then decide on the exact rules and conditions.
1. No pin - no comeback against an attack.
2. Full pin - bigger fleet with pinning ships takes all.
There needs to be some middle ground between the two extremes.
Emergency Jump is not satisfactory as a means of tactics, it is as the name suggests for Emergency use only. Generals do not commit troops with the presumption that at some point they must scatter and run for cover.
The above suggestion simply means that Pinning gives a tactical advantage to the pinning side and the side withdrawing from the middle of combat suffers as a consequence.
That's it in a nutshell.
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Jun 10 2005, 08:07 AM) |
| But the poxy little ship can still be used to pin a ship while the heavy warships target it - and they are a threat? I don't have a lot of combat experience but isn't this mostly the case now? The pinner doesn't do any damage, it just stops the ship leaving while the heavy hitters pound it. |
Not quite. The pinning fleet hold many ships. The heavy hitters all target one of the pinned ships, destroying each sequentially over a number of days (as at the moment the pin ship simply cannot leave combat except through EJ).
In the above scenario under the proposed system, if thirty pinning ships are holding targets while twenty heavy hitters are pounding them, if all are targeting one ship, then it will be destroyed but the other twenty nine targeted only by a pinning ship will leave with negligible damage.
If the twenty each have thirty targets (ridiculous I know), then they will again do trivial damage to the the whole fleet as it pulls out.
It then comes down to how you assign your targets based on whether you suspect that they will be there for a single day or a number of days in order to deliver the most effective damage.
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Jun 10 2005, 07:59 AM) | ||
Does "stationary" mean that the ship no longer has any combat thrust? |
Targeting position - not pinned position. The targeting position could be a GP, starbase, platform or even a ship with no thrust.
Most of the pinned ships that had been damaged fell to pieces during the repeated E-J attempts as a first try success is problematical inside ring 10.
I can live with this one.
Geoff
)| QUOTE (Frabby @ Jun 10 2005, 08:25 AM) |
| ...people complained... |
Undoubtedly some people do complain. People will always complain, but people also point out flaws, inadequacies, bugs, holes, problems. It isn't always complaining. If you found a bug you'd want it fixing. Would you be complaining?
It goes back to the fact that you cannot ever get everything completely right first time with something this complex. It needs testing and trial and error.
Personally I think pinning, as a concept, is pretty difficult to justify, but if it's needed as a game balance mechanic then fair enough. If it currently isn't balanced then it needs changing.
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Jun 10 2005, 11:29 AM) |
| Personally I think pinning, as a concept, is pretty difficult to justify, but if it's needed as a game balance mechanic then fair enough. |
If pinning ships had a very-short-range ISR jammer then that'd be a good justification - no ISR field = no escape.
Though this would make more sense to me if designated pinners needed item X to fire as a type of weapon rather than just supressing ISR fields automagically.
Guess that's all academic now though.
One question though, will a pinned ship still be unable to receive deliveries (ammo etc)?
Thomas
A couple of points
1) Pinned ships cannot currently rearm. Will this still be the case? Mica has stated that the flee from pin will occur between rounds. Does this mean that a fleeing ship can break its pin rearm and then re-enter the battle immediately. If this is the case then ammo based weapons with one day's ammo will be completely favoured over any energy weapons. Can the pinned ship be prevented from re-entering battle on the same day that it flees?
2) I would prefer if the pinned ship did not have a choice on where it ended up after fleeing, this is still an emergency retreat order after all. So a ship fleeing a battle in Delta 7 might end up in Delta 6 or in Beta 7.
3) The preferred Imperial tactic is attacking our platforms with missile ammo. Our current defense tactic is large platforms linked to pinners. This means that any attacking group has to either a) bring in faster pinners or
suffer losses on retreat. The new rules allow the Imperials to attack, damage the platform then retreat. While the change to how damage is assigned to empty space will mean that cleaning out a platforms point defenses will not be as easily done, can I ask that Mica/David run some test battles to ensure that platform defense tactics do not suffer due to this change. Do we need triple or quadruple armour on platforms and hvy shields to compensate for the fact that pinned ships can now leave the battle. Platforms can be big but they need to survive more than one day against the Imperial missile fleet or they become a redundant part of the game. The DTR has spent millions of manufacturing MUs on our platforms and built our tactics about the current rules. The Imperials hate the pinning rules because they restrict their favoured offensive tactic, dont make the DTR hate the new rules because they limit our favoured defense tactic or we will be back here re-discussing this in six months time.
As an aside for those that have not fought the DTR, the "toothpick" or "poxy little" ships that the Imperials dont like are 50H ships. These are 50% the size of the current standard IMP ship and are infact more costly to build than the 75N standard carriers that the IMPs enjoy using. The GTT like using 10N ships to pin, effectively 5% of the manufacture of the DTR standard. There is a big difference. these ships are armed with tractor beams and fighter bays, they could easily have been armed with 3 photon cannons instead and done damage.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Jun 10 2005, 07:11 AM) |
| Targeting position is stationery – 1 round Targeting position is slower – 2 rounds Targeting position is equal to or faster – 3 rounds |
Does this also apply to Bases and other stationary objects???
| QUOTE (Sjaak At Work @ Jun 10 2005, 12:22 PM) | ||
Does this also apply to Bases and other stationary objects??? |
yep - those come under 'stationary'.
As an aside for those that have not fought the DTR, the "toothpick" or "poxy little" ships that the Imperials dont like are 50H ships. These are 50% the size of the current standard IMP ship and are infact more costly to build than the 75N standard carriers that the IMPs enjoy using. The GTT like using 10N ships to pin, effectively 5% of the manufacture of the DTR standard. There is a big difference. these ships are armed with tractor beams and fighter bays, they could easily have been armed with 3 photon cannons instead and done damage.
the size of the vessel is unimportant, put 3 photon cannons on it, its is still un-important, three photon cannons or even 10 photon cannons against a 100HH ship would still take abosolutley ages to destroy a battleship. what doesnt take ages is the fact the large heavily armoured battle ship cannot move, so for your 3 photon cannon "investment" as you stated earlier, you destroy it.
Please Romanov dont look at this change as DTR this and IMP that, we arent the only affiliations in the game.
My main question is:
if day 1 then, 3 ships are shooting at a battle ship, 1 being a pinner with 2 tractor beams, the other 2 being weapons ships and still faster (in this case)
On day 2 i assume when the fleet disengages, only those 3 ships get the free shots on the pinned ship. for the duration that it is possible. 3 rounds 4 rounds etc
just wanted to clarify that
Overall, i think the newer proposal is a far easier smechanism to sort out.
| QUOTE |
| Pinned ships cannot currently rearm. Will this still be the case? Mica has stated that the flee from pin will occur between rounds. Does this mean that a fleeing ship can break its pin rearm and then re-enter the battle immediately. |
Between rounds, i.e. during combat. Once a ship has left combat, that is it for the day, same as now. Obviously it can re-arm and enter the next day, though this will only be a viable tactic if the position has only been pinned and targeted by trivial positions. If you have your tactics right, you should give anybody breaking a pin a bloody good reason to keep on running.
| QUOTE |
| I would prefer if the pinned ship did not have a choice on where it ended up after fleeing, this is still an emergency retreat order after all. So a ship fleeing a battle in Delta 7 might end up in Delta 6 or in Beta 7. |
Fleeing combat does not cause the position to leave the location. If this was the case we are back to the chaos of run and scatter that is the EJ. This purpose of this is to allow for an orderly retreat, i.e. only your pranged ships withdraw under fire and then move off next day, or your assault fleet, having done the damage retreats while the enemy blast your backs.
| QUOTE |
| The preferred Imperial tactic is attacking our platforms with missile ammo. Our current defense tactic is large platforms linked to pinners. This means that any attacking group has to either a) bring in faster pinners or suffer losses on retreat. The new rules allow the Imperials to attack, damage the platform then retreat. |
This is true. It will be the case of getting the balance right. It can't be that hit and run becomes the only viable tactic, but by the same token it cannot be that there is no point in attacking as you cannot achieve anything.
| QUOTE |
| "toothpick" or "poxy little" ships |
I was refering to all the ships that were not giving something a good kicking. For my money Poxy and Toothpick describes any warship that punches far below its weight irrespective of who built it.
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ Jun 10 2005, 12:51 PM) |
| the size of the vessel is unimportant, put 3 photon cannons on it, its is still un-important, three photon cannons or even 10 photon cannons against a 100HH ship would still take abosolutley ages to destroy a battleship. what doesnt take ages is the fact the large heavily armoured battle ship cannot move, so for your 3 photon cannon "investment" as you stated earlier, you destroy it. |
Its the description of these ships as "poxy little" and "toothpick" that I dislike not the proposed rules or why they are being proposed. The Imperials like to make out that the Imperials keep being forced to ejump because we have lots of very small, non-damaging fast ships which keep them pinned while the cavalry arrives. I wanted to point out that these ships were not small and that they could do damage if we wanted them to.
Changing the rules benefits our offensive tactics as well. We will be able to do a lot more offensive actions knowing that we can withdraw a small fleet if it gets into trouble. We can all agree that the current rules prevent small fleet actions because if a small fleet is pinned it is in major trouble. You are therefore forced to send everything.
Nic
the new mechanism does mean that differing strategies can be employed.
| QUOTE (Romanov @ Jun 10 2005, 01:55 PM) |
| Its the description of these ships as "poxy little" and "toothpick" that I dislike |
The way I read it is this:
Some pinners are "poxy little" ships some are "toothpicks". They don't have to be both. A 400 hull ship armed only with 2 tractor beams (and hundreds of combat engines) could be described as a "toothpick" ship. Toothpick referring to the amount of damage the ship does while using the current pinning rules, not the potential of the ship, it's size or it's general design.
| QUOTE (finalstryke @ Jun 10 2005, 10:38 AM) |
| If pinning ships had a very-short-range ISR jammer then that'd be a good justification - no ISR field = no escape. |
That *is* the curren justification as I understand it, except that the jamming field is due to the fact the ship has mass.
(Although actually that should imply a bigger ship should be able to pin more easily...)
Dan
If I am reading the above suggestion correctly, then the following scenario occurs.
Suppose a single warship attacks a freighter that has escort ships. The attacker has only the freighter on his enemy list, so thus targets the freighter, and being faster (almost certainly) pins it. The freighter is set to flee, but being pinned, automatically takes four rounds of damage to do so.
The escorts have a chance to fire back at the attacking warship afterwards, but can do absolutely nothing to save the freighter.
Is this correct?
Richard
AFT
and regarding the freighter, that is how the current system works, if the ship is faster and targetting the freighter, and if the freighter is unable to leave the combat even after dumping cargo, then he is already scuppered.
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ Jun 10 2005, 08:08 PM) |
| and regarding the freighter, that is how the current system works, if the ship is faster and targetting the freighter, and if the freighter is unable to leave the combat even after dumping cargo, then he is already scuppered. |
The way I read the proposal, the firing at the pinned vessel is _between rounds_. Thus, unlike in normal combat, the freighter attempting to flee will not be supported by its escorts.
Secondly, regardless of whether or not this is the way it currently works, is this the way it _should_ work?
Just some thoughts - at the moment I'm just asking for clarification of the proposals.
Richard
AFT
Day One - Normal battle as now
Day Two - Pinned ships can attempt to leave taking x rnds of damage depending on the ships with incoming fire.
Day Three - Released ships can re-enter battle (if they want) after rearming.
But as Richard pointed out your freighter was probably toast day one.
On ammo-based ship tactics you will now have fast ships that can rearm every day if unpinned, really slow ships that deliver huge damage every other day (no combat thrust just ML/TLs) and ships that can deliver a sustained delivery over several days whether pinned or not.
Nic
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Jun 10 2005, 07:11 AM) |
| Pinning does not prevent a position from leaving combat. A pinned position however has to run the gauntlet in order to escape. |
So a ship that is pinned because its combat speed has been reduced to 0 can still escape? If so, I assume it will not gain any dodge bonus? or will all shots during the extra rounds all hit (like boardings)?
Mark
This is going to make planning for the next days fight a bit iffy as your missile/torpedoe ships could run out of ammunition between rounds.
| QUOTE (Romanov @ Jun 10 2005, 11:08 PM) |
| Day One - Normal battle as now Day Two - Pinned ships can attempt to leave taking x rnds of damage depending on the ships with incoming fire. Day Three - Released ships can re-enter battle (if they want) after rearming. |
That is more reasonable. If your freighter cannot flee at the start of the battle, then if it can survive for one days battle, the escorts have a chance of doing sufficient damage to the attacker during that first day's battle for the freighter to escape from the pin at the start of the second day. OK so the chances of the freighter getting away in one piece are fairly minimal (they always were), but the escorts do have a chance to make an impact.
Geoff is right that the extra rounds may cause fun with planning for ships with ammunition, but overall I think that the proposal will significantly add to the viable combat options.
Richard
AFT
On a slightly different note, will fighter-based weapons only be shooting on rounds 2 and 3 (if relevant) of the pin-break process? It means that they won't do anything if launched from a base or other stationary target....
Dan
Nic
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jun 11 2005, 10:35 AM) |
| what it means for ammunition, is that you need to stock an extra 2-3 rounds worth of ammo if you want to be able to take a potshot when a ship you're targetting breaks pin. |
Another change to ship configurations - and a large reduction in the missile/torpedo launchers carried. Thus less hitting power.
Which is not to say that I do not find the proposals acceptable
Geoff
What it might do, is bring beam weaponry back into more common ship use?
Dan
Unlike what Mica said earlier some generals do deploy their forces, expecting them to scatter and flee. That kind of tactic is used in guerrilla, diversionary attacks, etc, etc. Preventing ships from doing hit and run, because there's 1 ship with tractor beams on the other side is unrealistic.
Also, I find it hard to believe that a 50 huller with 10-15 tractor beams is capable of pinning a 100 Huller. Now, if you have the same returns as an interdictor Vs a 150 huller, 200 or Vs an ARC that's even harder to believe.
If the principle behind tractor beams is gravimetrics, the effect upon the pinner is the same as on the pinned ship, preventing both from having a linear trajectory, though I'd say that if the pinned ship has more mass it's likely to pull the pinner.
Faster ships should be able to evade pin, the same as much larger ships unless several smaller ships align their tractor pull to effectively pin the target. I guess a mass/speed/tractor factor formula should be developed "further"!
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 12 2005, 02:27 PM) |
| Also, I find it hard to believe that a 50 huller with 10-15 tractor beams is capable of pinning a 100 Huller. |
That all depends on how the tractor tech works, if it's like we've seen on most sci-fis where it pulls the two object together then your right, however it could be some kind of anti-kenetic engery device or anything really.
| QUOTE |
| Faster ships should be able to evade pin, the same as much larger ships unless several smaller ships align their tractor pull to effectively pin the target. I guess a mass/speed/tractor factor formula should be developed "further"! |
As far as i'm aware faster ships can't be pinned at all, so thats handled. And for larger ships you need more tractor beams to slow them down (i belive it's due via thrust ratios, although i might be totally wrong) either way i think the suggested changes so far are a good thing, but i agree they don't solve the problems and there are still going to be major flaws.
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jun 12 2005, 11:55 AM) |
| yes, less hitting power for single-day missile/torp ships, if you want them to also be able to break pins. What it might do, is bring beam weaponry back into more common ship use? |
Speed and size now have nothing to do with breaking pinning. The running ship will not be able to fire back. One day missile ships will not have more rnds of ammo because those ships will be planning to leave the battle and rearm anyway.
The one disadvantage under the old rules that missile ships had was that they ran out of ammo and if you were pinned you could not rearm. With the new rules, you will be able to break the pin and then rearm. Missiles ships will become the standard ship config.
Photon 100H has a standard 10 photon cannons ie 900 damage/rnd
One Day Missile 100H has 20 ML (kinetics)/20 TL (plasma) ie assume 20% reduction due to PD (1400 + 6000 * 0.8) = 6000.
Missile ships fire once every two days so average 3000 damage vs 900 damage / rnd. Which will you prefer?
No one will be using photons.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Jun 10 2005, 07:11 AM) |
| The pinned position cannot fire back (whole hoard of reasons – engines in line of sight, energy usage, random manoeuvring but most importantly Game Balance). |
Will the pinned ship still be able to use point defence? If not, then missile ships get stronger even more.
Mark
| QUOTE (Romanov @ Jun 13 2005, 07:11 AM) |
| No one will be using photons. |
How much more damage would photon weapons need to do in order to make it a feasible option (without making ammo weapons redundant in turn)?
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ Jun 13 2005, 01:10 PM) | ||
Will the pinned ship still be able to use point defence? If not, then missile ships get stronger even more. Mark |
perhaps there should be a to hit bonus for beam weaponry as the course of the target becomes easier to predict (ie; more straighline flying away from combat as opposed to trying to remain within shooting distance itself)
whilst the same could be said for missiles/torps with the target ship presumably heading away as fast as it can from combat they have to actually catch their target before impact
Assuming that you are firing at the stern of a ship, would hits on a pinned vessel be more likely to disable?
| QUOTE (MasterTrader @ Jun 11 2005, 10:23 AM) |
| That is more reasonable. If your freighter cannot flee at the start of the battle, then if it can survive for one days battle, the escorts have a chance of doing sufficient damage to the attacker during that first day's battle for the freighter to escape from the pin at the start of the second day. OK so the chances of the freighter getting away in one piece are fairly minimal (they always were), but the escorts do have a chance to make an impact. |
Just a query about the freighter and escort scenario. If the escorts are set to screen the freighter will they not take the pin for it thus leaving the freighter a clear escape route?
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ Jun 14 2005, 11:57 AM) |
| to be fair though, before any changes, beam weaponary was becoming redundant, on the basis that damage caused and hit rate is far less than any other weapons format |
A major problem is that ships are not designed to fight off missile attacks. In a hit and run designed ship point defenses are removed to add in extra ammo/weapons, this makes them susceptable to missile attacks.
While I can understand that pinning rules do not allow tactical withdrawing which as I have stated makes large mass battles the norm, the damage that missiles do is based on the fact that missile ships would be pinned and therefore not able to re-arm. Therefore missiles got higher damage values to compensate for the fact that missile ships would not be able to re-arm. We are now removing this restriction.
Hopefully Mica and David can suggest a sensible reduction in the missile/torps damage which will allow the new pinning rules not be shift the game to entirely missile based ships.
enough said there.....we could both go on for ages on that one.
Sam Toridan
regarding your escort query, as long as the vessel you are screening with, is faster and of comparible size you would possibly break the pin for the ship. it isnt guaranteed though.
| QUOTE (Romanov @ Jun 14 2005, 12:09 PM) |
| A major problem is that ships are not designed to fight off missile attacks. In a hit and run designed ship point defenses are removed to add in extra ammo/weapons, this makes them susceptable to missile attacks. |
Im not sure how this means missiles are over-powered; doesnt it just mean ships designs are poor - if you dont have point defence, then youve got to expect heavy damage!
The only way missiles would be over-powered would be if you have a lot of point defence and missiles still do more damage than other alternatives (taking re-arming into account too). Is this the case, or is it simply lack of defences? The battles Ive seen with plenty of PD show them stopping most missiles...
Mark
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ Jun 13 2005, 12:10 PM) | ||
Will the pinned ship still be able to use point defence? If not, then missile ships get stronger even more. Mark |
I would be surprised if they couldn't.
As the rules stand now when a ship is pinned by another position it means the pinned ship cannot form an ISR field to leave the OQ??
If that's the case why is the combat speed of the pinned ship also reduced?
Combat/thrust engines don't use ISR fields!!
If a position manages to pin another to stop the formation of an ISR field it shouldn't follow that the combat speed of the target is reduced as well.
Just an observation!
| QUOTE (Ted @ Jun 14 2005, 05:11 PM) |
| If that's the case why is the combat speed of the pinned ship also reduced? Combat/thrust engines don't use ISR fields!! |
Is combat speed reduced because of a pin? i thought that only happened as a result of tractor beams, etc?
| QUOTE (Ted @ Jun 14 2005, 05:11 PM) |
| If that's the case why is the combat speed of the pinned ship also reduced? Combat/thrust engines don't use ISR fields!! |
| QUOTE (FLZPD @ Jun 15 2005, 12:44 PM) |
| Is combat speed reduced because of a pin? i thought that only happened as a result of tractor beams, etc? |
And a lot of pinners now seem to be using tractors to pin...
| QUOTE |
| And a lot of pinners now seem to be using tractors to pin... |
Exactly!!!
If a ship is using tractor beams to pin a target,why is the combat speed reduced along with the disruption of the targets ISR field?
A ship is either prevented from leaving the OQ because of ISR failure,or it's combat speed reduced.
Pinning ships are getting two bites of the cherry.
It should be one or the other IMHO!!
| QUOTE (Ted @ Jun 15 2005, 01:45 PM) |
| If a ship is using tractor beams to pin a target,why is the combat speed reduced along with the disruption of the targets ISR field? |
Because Tractor beams reduce the speed of the ship. This is the effect of the tractor beams not the pinning. Any ship hitting you with tractors will slow you down, it may or may not result in a pin (although by slowing you down it makes pinning more likely).
It would be like saying "If a ship with missiles pins you, why does the pinning cause damage" when it's the missiles that are damaging you.
| QUOTE |
| Because Tractor beams reduce the speed of the ship. This is the effect of the tractor beams not the pinning. Any ship hitting you with tractors will slow you down, it may or may not result in a pin (although by slowing you down it makes pinning more likely). |
But it's my understanding that a pinned ship is unable to form an ISR field to move from the OQ??
So why does reducing the combat speed of a ship also stop the formation of the field??
I thought that the Physics behind ISR fields is such that if two fields are in close proximity(sp)neither would be able to form.
If that's the case,if a ship is pinning another shouldn't that ship also be pinned due to the ISR field of the target ship.As after all the target ship did have a fully formed ISR field before the pining ship came anywhere near it.
I still say we have two separate technologies(ISR drives and Combat/Thrust engines)being affected by the same tactic.
I'm quite happy with the proposed changes mentioned here,but I would like to know if pinning either disrupts ISR fields or reduces combat speed.
I can't see how it can do both!!
| QUOTE (Ted @ Jun 15 2005, 04:33 PM) |
| So why does reducing the combat speed of a ship also stop the formation of the field?? |
Ted, it doesn't.
Yes, Tractor Beams reduce combat speed. And yes pinning prevents the ISR field forming, thus stopping ISR movement.
They are entirely separate effects.
If I punched you in the face (pardon the example
) and then tied you up, it's not the black eye that stops you running away.If you pin a ship with photons the speed isn't reduced but the ISR is disrupted and the ship can't leave the quad. If you hit a ship with tractors but don't manage to pin it then the speed is reduced but an ISR field can form and the ship can leave the quad.
You need to separate the effect of the weapon (Tractor Beam) from the effect of the pinning.
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 15 2005, 05:18 PM) |
| don't tractors act as weapons too? The effect is only hidden because as it is weapons fire on alphabetical order (the most "stupid rule" ever) and thus tractors fire last, instead of the logical "...let's tractor the bastard, reduce his speed and increase our chances of hitthing our our Absurdly powerful star killer weapon..." as opposed to missing with the big bad ass weapon starting with A and then find out that if you had fired the tractors first you'd most likely have hit the target. |
I think i'm going to have to start renaming all my weapons....
| QUOTE (ptb @ Jun 15 2005, 04:42 PM) | ||
I think i'm going to have to start renaming all my weapons.... |
This would be solved, by using an init for each weapon.
So an item with init 15 shoots before an weapon with init 12...
I mean everyone would like to have their shield killers fire sooner than the armour killer weapon right? Well I'd like mine to! Much more than being able to select ammo!!
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 16 2005, 01:41 PM) |
| That may be so for the tractors, but I guess everyone agrees that a working fire order is in order (pun intended) I mean everyone would like to have their shield killers fire sooner than the armour killer weapon right? Well I'd like mine to! Much more than being able to select ammo!! |
On the other hand i want my enemies shield killers to fire last
so really it all evens out in the end. | QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 16 2005, 01:41 PM) |
| I mean everyone would like to have their shield killers fire sooner than the armour killer weapon right? Well I'd like mine to! Much more than being able to select ammo!! |
unless shield-degredation also isn't recalculated until the next round (I don't know if it is or not, just saying)?
| QUOTE (ptb @ Jun 15 2005, 04:42 PM) |
| I think i'm going to have to start renaming all my weapons.... |
+++ TRANSCRIPT BEGINS
+++ RECORDED: BROTHERHOOD RESEARCH FACILITY, LOCATION *CLASSIFIED*
VOICE A: Err. New orders from Patriarch Tenor
VOICE B: Oh, no. What now? Let's see
*PAUSE*
VOICE B: He wants what? He must be kidding! There must be some mistake!
VOICE A: No, I confirmed it with him personally. He wants us to retrofit the missile launchers to fire aardvarks. He didn't say why.
+++ TRANSCRIPT ENDS
round, or does it vary according to the >weapons that hit them? Ex: 20
light guns followed by 20 cannons. Would the cannons find a much depleted
>shield depth, or still the initial one?
Shield defpth is recalculated after every weapon hit, weapon hits are alphabetic, and the order of attackers is based speed, fastest first
(most likely).
that's David Bethel replying
| QUOTE (Avatar @ Jun 16 2005, 07:14 PM) |
| Shield defpth is recalculated after every weapon hit, weapon hits are alphabetic, and the order of attackers is based speed, fastest first (most likely). that's David Bethel replying |
Faster ships attack first? hmm didn't know that.