|
|
|
| Re: Min Damage Rule Clarification |
Fri, 20 April 2012 14:07   |
|
|
|
Mighty expensive if we need to build chaff for alpha and beta torps as well..
Just a response, no additional suggestions, sadly..
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Min Damage Rule Clarification |
Fri, 20 April 2012 14:51 |
|
| Eagle of Fire | 
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5 | |
|
Perhaps but the premise of this thread is faulty to begin with.
Frigates are not mainstream ships. They are support ships. If you wish to turn a support ship into a mainstream ship with numbers then you are bound to have problems like this.
In comparison, you need 200 destroyers, 700 cruisers or 2000 battleships before this issue arise. It is why the original exploit was to use an insane amount of alpha torpedo ships to down battleships or nubians in a single turn even though it is not exactly the same problem than what is being discussed in this thread since I think it had to do with the fact that the minimum damage cannot be less than a fractional percentage and thus a finite amount of torpedoes in a single turn can destroy any token irrelevantly of size.
Try to picture a navel fleet IRL. You have all kind of ships which incidentally have all the same denomination. You have fast and nimble scout ships which cannot defend themselves at all in battle, the frigates which is your fastest ship with an actual gun mounted on it, destroyers which are decent, cruisers which pack a real punch and also battleships with those huge cannons which pack a whallop.
Now, picture trying to win a naval war with a thousand frigate ships. They'll all be packed together in a very small area... But since they are equiped with shields and they stack their shield strenght together, the ion cannon in orbit can't even scratch them. But if you use a rock, a very big rock thrown from orbit instead... It is solid and will go thru the shield, damaging or downright destroying some of those frigates. Some more might even be turned upside down simply by the splash of the impact, etc.
Torpedoes and missiles work exactly the same way. They are solid and explode on impact and thus can work their way around shields.
STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Min Damage Rule Clarification |
Fri, 20 April 2012 15:05 |
|
|
|
I loved the visualisation. Very well written battle description!
I would then say that altruist's prediction that this will be a big attitude changing development in stars play would be quite true.
If we can come to accept chaff and not stop its use, then we shouldn't stop the use of torp stacks either.
Very apt example of firing energy weapons against shields and torpedoes against massed stacks.
Of course people would need to be willing to accept it and play with it, instead of making rules and limitations to stop it from affecting battles.
[Updated on: Fri, 20 April 2012 15:06] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Min Damage Rule Clarification |
Fri, 20 April 2012 15:08 |
|
|
|
I think the approach to compare Stars with whatever weird situations in an assumed real life situation... is not really helpful.
| Quote: |
Perhaps but the premise of this thread is faulty to begin with.
Frigates are not mainstream ships. They are support ships.
|
As are destroyers. You fight with what's available. And Stars wasn't made to fight only with nubians and weap26.
But that's besides the point.
It's about an exploit in Stars and wether a rule is possible/suitable/practical like we have for many other exploits in Stars or wether we have just to live with it. By now I tend to the latter but if anybody can come up with a practical rule or agreement, it would be helpful for the whole community.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Min Damage Rule Clarification |
Fri, 20 April 2012 15:11 |
|
|
|
We don't have the jeffs around to say that this isn't a bug but rather a feature of the game, like they did with chaff.. But I would be quite certain that they would say something similar.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Agree. The devil's in the details, tho. 
