3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Except it does matter. It is the most important question. Does your tinkering add fun for your players. You seem to keep ignoring that question in your desire to tinker with something . Im telling you play it as written first.

I'm saying yes, it does add fun (If it causes problems I would not use it). I believe that the rules as written, are broken.

Do you agree that the base rules are not good, regardless of what you think the proper solution would be?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

We are playing in a universe that can manipulate gravity and you are worried about making sense? Tractor beams use handwavium particles to cause the effect. There fixed. We dont know how any of the tech works so it really doesnt need to make sense.

Grrrrr. Manipulate gravity, I say okay. You say this thing the size of a pin can pull a planet out of orbit, and I say, that doesn't make sense (unless you have a really good excuse). Tractor Beams are basically specialized shield projectors (according to the book) shields are limited by power generation, so therefore, size is definitely a factor and the larger the object, the larger the shield needed, so more power is needed. If Star Wars came right out and said, any size of ship can tractor beam a ship of any size, I would except it (to a certain extent) but for now, we have what we see in the movies, the books, and we have our logic.

44 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm saying yes, it does add fun (If it causes problems I would not use it). I believe that the rules as written, are broken.

Do you agree that the base rules are not good, regardless of what you think the proper solution would be?

Grrrrr. Manipulate gravity, I say okay. You say this thing the size of a pin can pull a planet out of orbit, and I say, that doesn't make sense (unless you have a really good excuse). Tractor Beams are basically specialized shield projectors (according to the book) shields are limited by power generation, so therefore, size is definitely a factor and the larger the object, the larger the shield needed, so more power is needed. If Star Wars came right out and said, any size of ship can tractor beam a ship of any size, I would except it (to a certain extent) but for now, we have what we see in the movies, the books, and we have our logic.

No i dont agree the base rules are bad. I believe they are good enough to simulate a movie and that is all that it needs to do. This is a movie simulator not a reality simulator. And given that we have no idea how a tractor beam works yiu really cant say what makes sense.

Just now, Daeglan said:

No i dont agree the base rules are bad. I believe they are good enough to simulate a movie and that is all that it needs to do. This is a movie simulator not a reality simulator. And given that we have no idea how a tractor beam works yiu really cant say what makes sense.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but we are told in the book that it is a shield projected around the target, so it would be incorrect to say that we have no idea how they work.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, but we are told in the book that it is a shield projected around the target, so it would be incorrect to say that we have no idea how they work.

And how do sheilds work? What can they do and what cant they do? Does mass matter? And so on. It is techno babble. We have no idea how it or what parameters are involved

37 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And how do sheilds work? What can they do and what cant they do? Does mass matter? And so on. It is techno babble. We have no idea how it or what parameters are involved

Mass of what? Yeah there is a lot we don't know, but we can get a general idea from the laws of physics and logic. (not that Star Wars always follows those)

45 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Mass of what? Yeah there is a lot we don't know, but we can get a general idea from the laws of physics and logic. (not that Star Wars always follows those)

Then why are you trying to apply physics in an atea you dont need to? It is techno magic

Just except it works as it does in the game. Handwaviam particles are involved

Easy fix:

State that the Max Silhouette of object that can be affected by a Tractor Beam should be equal to or lower than the Tractoring ship.

Done.

4 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

Easy fix:

State that the Max Silhouette of object that can be affected by a Tractor Beam should be equal to or lower than the Tractoring ship.

Done.

That would certainly work for some people, but I am also interested in adjusting the relevant difficulty. That is certainly a good compromise, though, if there were to be a disagreement in a game regarding the tractor beam rules.

If you really want to keep it simple and elegant, then simply state that you upgrade the piloting check to free yourself from the tractor beam once for every Silhouette higher than the beams' rating or the tractoring ships silhouette, whichever is higher. So Slave 1 with a tractor 2 would give the VSD at silhouette 8 six upgrades to his piloting check to break free ... effectively making it almost impossible for the VSD not to free itself. By the same token, using the tractor beam on a starfighter wouldn't really effect the roll dramatically at all.

Putting a heavy tractor onto Slave 1 (if you could manage the power requirements) would result in the beams tractor 6 only giving two upgrades, but Slave 1's own silhouette of 4 giving the VSD 4 upgrades, again making the VSD very likely to break free (in this case the explained by the power generation and mass of the smaller ship not being able to account for stopping it).

9 minutes ago, Kyla said:

If you really want to keep it simple and elegant, then simply state that you upgrade the piloting check to free yourself from the tractor beam once for every Silhouette higher than the beams' rating or the tractoring ships silhouette, whichever is higher. So Slave 1 with a tractor 2 would give the VSD at silhouette 8 six upgrades to his piloting check to break free ... effectively making it almost impossible for the VSD not to free itself. By the same token, using the tractor beam on a starfighter wouldn't really effect the roll dramatically at all.

Putting a heavy tractor onto Slave 1 (if you could manage the power requirements) would result in the beams tractor 6 only giving two upgrades, but Slave 1's own silhouette of 4 giving the VSD 4 upgrades, again making the VSD very likely to break free (in this case the explained by the power generation and mass of the smaller ship not being able to account for stopping it).

That really isn't a bad solution, I still like mine better for a couple of reasons, but that is actually a pretty good idea. And then I guess you could add Boost or Setback to represent speed.

On 8/12/2019 at 12:24 PM, Kyla said:

If you really want to keep it simple and elegant, then simply state that you upgrade the piloting check to free yourself from the tractor beam once for every Silhouette higher than the beams' rating or the tractoring ships silhouette, whichever is higher. So Slave 1 with a tractor 2 would give the VSD at silhouette 8 six upgrades to his piloting check to break free ... effectively making it almost impossible for the VSD not to free itself. By the same token, using the tracto  r beam on a starfighter wouldn't really effect the roll dramatically at all.       

Putting a heavy tractor onto Slave 1 (if you could manage the power requirements) would result in the beams tractor 6 only giving two upgrades, but Slave 1's own silhouette of 4 giving the VSD 4 upgrades, again making the VSD very likely to break free (in this case the explained by the power generation and mass of the smaller ship not being able to account for stopping it). 

This is the sort of thing I was talking about when I was saying there has to be a more streamlined and elegant solution that is more in-line with the spirit of the FFG Star Wars RPG rules. Haven't done too much theory-testing with it, but it looks good at first inspection. Good job!

Really though, what I did in my games was just amend the definition of the "Tractor" special quality which fixes everything. In place of the line "Once the weapon hits its target, the target may not move unless its pilot makes a successful Piloting check with a difficulty of the tractor beam's rating" I replaced it with "Once the weapon hits its target, the target reduces the range bands between it and the tractoring ship by one at the start of the tractoring ships initiative step and may not increase the range band distance from the tractoring ship unless its pilot makes a successful Piloting check with a difficulty of the tractor beam's rating."

1 hour ago, Kyla said:

Really though, what I did in my games was just amend the definition of the "Tractor" special quality which fixes everything. In place of the line "Once the weapon hits its target, the target may not move unless its pilot makes a successful Piloting check with a difficulty of the tractor beam's rating" I replaced it with "Once the weapon hits its target, the target reduces the range bands between it and the tractoring ship by one at the start of the tractoring ships initiative step and may not increase the range band distance from the tractoring ship unless its pilot makes a successful Piloting check with a difficulty of the tractor beam's rating."

That is a fine solution for a different problem. My issue is with the difficulty (or lack thereof) for escaping a tractor beam, not the way tractor beams work. I do like that though, I might use it.

I haven't used tractor beams in years in my games but I just did on Sunday. Here's how it went:

Flipped a Destiny Point, said the group was caught in a tractor beam.

Gave them a Formidable check to escape and they failed.

Ship was pulled in.

Now the group has to find their way into this base and disable the tractor beam before they can leave.

Personally don't like that a tractor beam has 2 chances to fail, one from the initial attack and one from the pilot getting a chance to escape, so it's just a destiny point and a piloting check at my table.

I don't think you actually need the Piloting check to escape, TBH. If a tractor beam just reduced your target's speed, they wouldn't be able to escape it anyway as they'd keep having to spend their Maneuver on the Accelerate/Decelerate manoeuvre. A small ship can Punch It to escape at the cost of lots of System Strain but it's not sustainable.

Here'd be my rewrite of Tractor:

When attacking with a tractor beam, if the Tractor quality is lower than the target's Silhouette, increase the difficulty of the check by 1 per point of Silhouette. On a hit, reduce the target's Speed by 1 per Success, to a minimum of 0.

Also fixes the weird issue with some ships coming with Linked tractor beams which do absolutely nothing- now they reduce speed even faster.

2 minutes ago, Talkie Toaster said:

I don't think you actually need the Piloting check to escape, TBH. If a tractor beam just reduced your target's speed, they wouldn't be able to escape it anyway as they'd keep having to spend their Maneuver on the Accelerate/Decelerate manoeuvre. A small ship can Punch It to escape at the cost of lots of System Strain but it's not sustainable.

Here'd be my rewrite of Tractor:

When attacking with a tractor beam, if the Tractor quality is lower than the target's Silhouette, increase the difficulty of the check by 1 per point of Silhouette. On a hit, reduce the target's Speed by 1 per Success, to a minimum of 0.

Also fixes the weird issue with some ships coming with Linked tractor beams which do absolutely nothing- now they reduce speed even faster.

Interesting. That's something to consider. It's a pretty good rewrite, though I'm not sure I would want to use it, it is pretty good. I didn't realize any ships came with linked tractor beams, I've been studying ship weapon loadouts and haven't come across that.

I think that it might nerf tractor beams a little bit too much though, because if you get one success, you don't really slow down a TIE fighter and it would take it one or two maneuvers to get out of range of the tractor beam. One thing you might want to change in your rewrite would be to drop the minimum, and what's left is the ship reeling in the target (i.e. -1 equals the target moving toward the ship at speed 1).

On 8/20/2019 at 4:21 PM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That is a fine solution for a different problem. My issue is with the difficulty (or lack thereof) for escaping a tractor beam, not the way tractor beams work. I do like that though, I might use it.

Except it does. Breaking free of the tractor beam using the base rules means that your overpowering the weapon system in this case, without regard to the size of ship. It makes sense in the case of a smaller ship, because the ship is only breaking the weapon system, not the entire bulk of the larger ship. It also makes sense in the case of the larger ship, because the smaller ship isn't trying to pull the entirety of the larger ship anywhere, only maintain connection to a small portion of the hull, thereby maintaining or decreasing distance. It never says that the smaller ship can force the larger ship towards a given destination, only that the larger ship cannot, by choice, increase it's distance from the smaller ship unless it breaks the weapon systems hold. This is hard for large ships for different reasons than small ships, but it's still hard. The larger ship cannot use it's greater power and size to break free because it's maneuvers, unless skillfully done, will pull the smaller ship along and not "shake it off."

8 hours ago, Kyla said:

Except it does. Breaking free of the tractor beam using the base rules means that your overpowering the weapon system in this case, without regard to the size of ship. It makes sense in the case of a smaller ship, because the ship is only breaking the weapon system, not the entire bulk of the larger ship. It also makes sense in the case of the larger ship, because the smaller ship isn't trying to pull the entirety of the larger ship anywhere, only maintain connection to a small portion of the hull, thereby maintaining or decreasing distance. It never says that the smaller ship can force the larger ship towards a given destination, only that the larger ship cannot, by choice, increase it's distance from the smaller ship unless it breaks the weapon systems hold. This is hard for large ships for different reasons than small ships, but it's still hard. The larger ship cannot use it's greater power and size to break free because it's maneuvers, unless skillfully done, will pull the smaller ship along and not "shake it off."

It is grappling for ships

11 hours ago, Kyla said:

Breaking free of the tractor beam using the base rules means that your overpowering the weapon system in this case, without regard to the size of ship.

Size of ship is an indicator of total power generation, and the more power that can be generated, the more power that can be put into any given weapon system.

11 hours ago, Kyla said:

It makes sense in the case of a smaller ship, because the ship is only breaking the weapon system, not the entire bulk of the larger ship.

See above.

11 hours ago, Kyla said:

It also makes sense in the case of the larger ship, because the smaller ship isn't trying to pull the entirety of the larger ship anywhere, only maintain connection to a small portion of the hull, thereby maintaining or decreasing distance. It never says that the smaller ship can force the larger ship towards a given destination, only that the larger ship cannot, by choice, increase it's distance from the smaller ship unless it breaks the weapon systems hold. This is hard for large ships for different reasons than small ships, but it's still hard. The larger ship cannot use it's greater power and size to break free because it's maneuvers, unless skillfully done, will pull the smaller ship along and not "shake it off."

From the OP:
"Edit: P.P.S. You can't attempt to escape unless you are moving in the opposite direction of the pull of the Tractor beam or faster than the chasing ship (if they are trying to reel you in while moving toward you, you count their speed as 1 higher)."
And if the smaller ship's engines are shut down, momentum would still carry it forward, so you could simply say that it goes at the same speed as the large ship (meaning that the large ship cannot attempt to shake it off). If the smaller ship were to try to hold the larger ship in place it just wouldn't work because the larger ship has too much momentum and raw engine strength (even if it technically isn't fast).

Just on a side note, a smaller ship (i.e. sil 4) trying to target a large ship would still need to be able to tractor a ship of its own size in order to tow itself behind a large ship.

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Size of ship is an indicator of total power generation, and the more power that can be generated, the more power that can be put into any given weapon system.

See above.

From the OP:
"Edit: P.P.S. You can't attempt to escape unless you are moving in the opposite direction of the pull of the Tractor beam or faster than the chasing ship (if they are trying to reel you in while moving toward you, you count their speed as 1 higher)."
And if the smaller ship's engines are shut down, momentum would still carry it forward, so you could simply say that it goes at the same speed as the large ship (meaning that the large ship cannot attempt to shake it off). If the smaller ship were to try to hold the larger ship in place it just wouldn't work because the larger ship has too much momentum and raw engine strength (even if it technically isn't fast).

Just on a side note, a smaller ship (i.e. sil 4) trying to target a large ship would still need to be able to tractor a ship of its own size in order to tow itself behind a large ship.

Power generation is not relevant to any other weapon. You are making assumptions for things we dont know in universe.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Power generation is not relevant to any other weapon. You are making assumptions for things we dont know in universe.

Tractor beams are based on shielding technology, and the more power you put into your shields, the more powerful your shields become. Simple logic would dictate that that would carry over to tractor beams.

Sources: "More power to the shields" -every Star Wars space captain ever.
Tractor beams page 229 EotE, 241 AoR.

18 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Tractor beams are based on shielding technology, and the more power you put into your shields, the more powerful your shields become. Simple logic would dictate that that would carry over to tractor beams.

Sources: "More power to the shields" -every Star Wars space captain ever.
Tractor beams page 229 EotE, 241 AoR.

First, let me say that I don't fundamentally have a problem with your stance on the issue, but, that said, let's be clear that your statement has multiple fallacies in a single argument ...

I'll discuss the hasty generalization fallacy - even if it is "based on modified shield technology" as the book says, then assuming the modifications made to the shield technology doesn't render power distribution abilities of shields inert is fallacious and cannot prove your opinion. Likewise, assuming that it DOES render it inert doesn't prove that you cannot apply more power to the tractor beam weapon to increase it's potency, however as neither of us are experts in either starship design in the fictional Star Wars universe, nor are we the originators of the ruleset, our opinions on whether the rules factor in this are moot, as they are uninformed.

The second is the slippery slops fallacy of "every Star Wars captain ever" saying "More power to the shields." Firstly, this is only ever stated when in distress, and never as a function of normal activity. To assume that the command would then lead to response that would, indeed, divert power from some other system in the ship to bolstering the shield power is fallacious. If could be a panicked shout let out in a moment like a dying scream ("we're all gonna die!!!!"). It could also be a misnomer for angling deflectors from other sections to the shield in preference. It could also be that they were using their shields at a "power saving setting" and not a full potency for that arc, and, in evidence they were under attack or critically threatened, called for full power. We don't know. All we can infer is what the game rules allow. In Tie vs X-Wing, for instance, there is a game mechanic allowing the transfer of power between lasers, engines and shields. So to determine if such a thing is possible in the Star Wars RPG, we should do the same, but what we find is there is no game mechanic (at least that I'm aware of) that in any way represents a capital ship (or any ship for that matter) to increase their shield value by diverting power from other areas. The only thing similar is the "angle deflector shields" which allows you to move a point of defense from one arc to another, not increase your defense maximum by diverting power from another system. So, the rules for Star Wars the RPG don't support your assumptions.

Now, your entire motivation for creating new rules to match your idea of how tractor beams work is predicated on the idea that FFG rules don't represent your vision of how they should work , and that's fine, I just disagree on the foundation that tractor beams should be more/less difficult to break free from. That mostly comes down to use; I don't want tractor beams to become plot breakers. In my opinion, they should be story enablers , not breakers. If you make the tractor beam too difficult in some situations to break, and too easy in others, they will become disruptive. It's always possible to up the difficulty (multiple beams on a single target upgrading diff, flipping destiny points, adding setback, etc) when the story requires it (****, even start a new scene in media res if necessary), but if you make it a matter of roll-play and not role-play it can be really disruptive to have our recurring villain tractored to the PC ship, or remove the agency of the get-away with a capital ship snatching up the PCs with little chance of evasion.

*Edited for horrible adjective selection

2 hours ago, Kyla said:

I'll discuss the hasty generalization fallacy - even if it is "based on modified shield technology" as the book says, then assuming the modifications made to the shield technology doesn't render power distribution abilities of shields inert is fallacious and cannot prove your opinion. Likewise, assuming that it DOES render it inert doesn't prove that you cannot apply more power to the tractor beam weapon to increase it's potency, however as neither of us are experts in either starship design in the fictional Star Wars universe, nor are we the originators of the ruleset, our opinions on whether the rules factor in this are moot, as they are uninformed.

I was trying to say that it was a logical extension, not a logical necessity. However, I do stand by my assertion in this case because it actually says modified shield generators (yeah, I missed that bit when I was typing it out) and we know that the more power you can give a shield, the stronger it is.

2 hours ago, Kyla said:

The second is the slippery slops fallacy of "every Star Wars captain ever" saying "More power to the shields." Firstly, this is only ever stated when in distress, and never as a function of normal activity. To assume that the command would then lead to response that would, indeed, divert power from some other system in the ship to bolstering the shield power is fallacious. If could be a panicked shout let out in a moment like a dying scream ("we're all gonna die!!!!"). It could also be a misnomer for angling deflectors from other sections to the shield in preference. It could also be that they were using their shields at a "power saving setting" and not a full potency for that arc, and, in evidence they were under attack or critically threatened, called for full power. We don't know. All we can infer is what the game rules allow. In Tie vs X-Wing, for instance, there is a game mechanic allowing the transfer of power between lasers, engines and shields. So to determine if such a thing is possible in the Star Wars RPG, we should do the same, but what we find is there is no game mechanic (at least that I'm aware of) that in any way represents a capital ship (or any ship for that matter) to increase their shield value by diverting power from other areas. The only thing similar is the "angle deflector shields" which allows you to move a point of defense from one arc to another, not increase your defense maximum by diverting power from another system. So, the rules for Star Wars the RPG don't support your assumptions.

The "every Star Wars captain ever" thing was mostly a joke, I could have given a better example than that. Better example: Boost Shields action description (fluff text): re-route power from other systems to boost the defensive systems of a vehicle. Long-and-short of it, take 1 SS and increase defense by a little bit.
That does not explicitly mean that you could do the same for a tractor beam, and I am not suggesting that we add a new action to "re-route power to the tractor beam," but it goes to show that you can put more power into shields to give them a boost.

Given this, I think that it is logical that a bigger ship would have stronger tractor beams. One way to look at it is that you could say that an ISD has more systems and more proportional power than a smaller ship, so it can easily reroute more power to a tractor beam from a currently unused system. I'm not suggesting that that is the way it is (because as you noted, we don't know), I'm just saying that is one way you could look at it.

2 hours ago, Kyla said:

Now, your entire motivation for creating new rules to match your idea of how tractor beams work is predicated on the idea that FFG rules don't represent your vision of how they should work , and that's fine, I just disagree on the foundation that tractor beams should be more/less difficult to break free from. That mostly comes down to use; I don't want tractor beams to become plot breakers. In my opinion, they should be story enablers , not breakers. If you make the tractor beam too difficult in some situations to break, and too easy in others, they will become disruptive. It's always possible to up the difficulty (multiple beams on a single target upgrading diff, flipping destiny points, adding setback, etc) when the story requires it (****, even start a new scene in media res if necessary), but if you make it a matter of roll-play and not role-play it can be really disruptive to have our recurring villain tractored to the PC ship, or remove the agency of the get-away with a capital ship snatching up the PCs with little chance of evasion.

Bold and Underlined: That is what I am trying to fix.
I agree that they should be story enablers, and that is what I am trying to do. If I'm using a Tractor Beam against the PCs, I probably have a very good reason. I don't believe, however, that the difficulty should simply suit your whims for the situation. If they are in a Sil 4 ship and are tractored by a large ship it would have an appropriate difficulty. If they are trying to tractor a nemesis in a starfighter, why shouldn't I let them? If I need to, I can find some other way for him to escape.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, because the difficulty should be appropriate to the situation and mechanically even-handed.

I, as a GM, would not just spam tractor beams, because that ends up not being very fun (for anybody), and the Empire is probably just trying to blast them unless I have a very good reason to want them on that ship. That said, I would let them escape if they rolled sufficiently well, because that is how the game is played.

A couple examples: If they are in a Sil 4, Speed 3 ship and are tractored by a VSD (tractor value 9) they would face a difficulty of RPPPP (which is actually no different from the base game), which I think is reasonable given the situation. Likewise, if they were in a Sil 5 ship with a medium tractor beam and tried to tractor an NPC's starfighter (Sil 3, Speed 5) the difficulty for the NPC would be PPP. Not all that hard. I believe that my rules are exceptionally balanced (even if I do say so myself) and I think that they don't not fit within universe (I can't say that they "fit" cause we don't really know enough).

23 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I was trying to say that it was a logical extension, not a logical necessity. However, I do stand by my assertion in this case because it actually says modified shield generators (yeah, I missed that bit when I was typing it out) and we know that the more power you can give a shield, the stronger it is.

The "every Star Wars captain ever" thing was mostly a joke, I could have given a better example than that. Better example: Boost Shields action description (fluff text): re-route power from other systems to boost the defensive systems of a vehicle. Long-and-short of it, take 1 SS and increase defense by a little bit.
That does not explicitly mean that you could do the same for a tractor beam, and I am not suggesting that we add a new action to "re-route power to the tractor beam," but it goes to show that you can put more power into shields to give them a boost.

Given this, I think that it is logical that a bigger ship would have stronger tractor beams. One way to look at it is that you could say that an ISD has more systems and more proportional power than a smaller ship, so it can easily reroute more power to a tractor beam from a currently unused system. I'm not suggesting that that is the way it is (because as you noted, we don't know), I'm just saying that is one way you could look at it.

Bold and Underlined: That is what I am trying to fix.
I agree that they should be story enablers, and that is what I am trying to do. If I'm using a Tractor Beam against the PCs, I probably have a very good reason. I don't believe, however, that the difficulty should simply suit your whims for the situation. If they are in a Sil 4 ship and are tractored by a large ship it would have an appropriate difficulty. If they are trying to tractor a nemesis in a starfighter, why shouldn't I let them? If I need to, I can find some other way for him to escape.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at, because the difficulty should be appropriate to the situation and mechanically even-handed.

I, as a GM, would not just spam tractor beams, because that ends up not being very fun (for anybody), and the Empire is probably just trying to blast them unless I have a very good reason to want them on that ship. That said, I would let them escape if they rolled sufficiently well, because that is how the game is played.

A couple examples: If they are in a Sil 4, Speed 3 ship and are tractored by a VSD (tractor value 9) they would face a difficulty of RPPPP (which is actually no different from the base game), which I think is reasonable given the situation. Likewise, if they were in a Sil 5 ship with a medium tractor beam and tried to tractor an NPC's starfighter (Sil 3, Speed 5) the difficulty for the NPC would be PPP. Not all that hard. I believe that my rules are exceptionally balanced (even if I do say so myself) and I think that they don't not fit within universe (I can't say that they "fit" cause we don't really know enough).

The problem is your solution makes that problem worse

Not better.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is your solution makes that problem worse

Not better.

How does it make it worse?