1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I've already explained myself on that one, so unless you are referring to something that I didn't actually cover, I would just refer you to those posts.

I'm using size as a stand-in for power generation because the larger the ship, the more power is required, and the more power can be produced. That also goes into what I was saying earlier about shielding. Plus if I simply removed that without putting something in to replace it it would unbalance the system.

I'm not sure what your point is regarding the distribution of classes of Tractor Beams, but the reason for more math is that it should be harder for a starfighter to escape the pull of an ISD's tractor beam than for an MC80 Liberty to do so, so having a blanket difficulty makes no sense to me. Here is one way to think about it: a shield generator must cover the entire span of a ship. Sort of like blowing up a balloon, as it expands, it gets thinner, and as it shrinks it gets thicker. if a tractor beam is projecting a field around the target ship, it must operate on a similar principle, thus making the field weaker around a large ship than around a small ship.

No, it isn't, no it shouldn't. The only thing that should be harder is for a ship to escape from a stronger Tractor Beam . And that is already determined by the Tractor Rating of said beam. The size of the ship using said beam is completely irrelevant. A large capital scale bulk Freighter is likely to have only light or medium Tractor bean generators, regardless of the ship's size. That means, that it's likely not going to be capturing ships of any size any time soon. By the same token, even a relatively small picket ship , such as a Customs cruiser, is more likely to have Heavy tractor beam generators because its very purpose is to capture smugglers and pirates, even if those ships are larger than the picket ship. Ergo, a picket ship will have Heavy tractor Beams. The size of the picket ship is irrelevant. As long as it can mount the heavy tractor beams, it's going to be capable of capturing ships, even ships bigger than itself. It's what such a ship is designed for. As such, the only thing that is important to the game is the Tractor Rating of the tractor beam generators. The ship's size does not matter at all.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't, no it shouldn't. The only thing that should be harder is for a ship to escape from a stronger Tractor Beam . And that is already determined by the Tractor Rating of said beam. The size of the ship using said beam is completely irrelevant. A large capital scale bulk Freighter is likely to have only light or medium Tractor bean generators, regardless of the ship's size. That means, that it's likely not going to be capturing ships of any size any time soon. By the same token, even a relatively small picket ship , such as a Customs cruiser, is more likely to have Heavy tractor beam generators because its very purpose is to capture smugglers and pirates, even if those ships are larger than the picket ship. Ergo, a picket ship will have Heavy tractor Beams. The size of the picket ship is irrelevant. As long as it can mount the heavy tractor beams, it's going to be capable of capturing ships, even ships bigger than itself. It's what such a ship is designed for. As such, the only thing that is important to the game is the Tractor Rating of the tractor beam generators. The ship's size does not matter at all.

You and I clearly have fundamental disagreements on how tractor beams work.

A freighter like you mentioned (sil 6) with a light tractor beam would give a Sil 4, speed 3 ship a difficulty of 1. In other words, "it's not going to be capturing ships of any size soon" a Medium Tractor beam would up that to 3, which as any ranged character knows well, is not all that hard.

An Imperial Customs Corvette with a Heavy Tractor Beam would give a Sil 4, Speed 3 ship a difficulty of 5 and a Gozanti a difficulty of 4.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You and I clearly have fundamental disagreements on how tractor beams work.

A freighter like you mentioned (sil 6) with a light tractor beam would give a Sil 4, speed 3 ship a difficulty of 1. In other words, "it's not going to be capturing ships of any size soon" a Medium Tractor beam would up that to 3, which as any ranged character knows well, is not all that hard.

An Imperial Customs Corvette with a Heavy Tractor Beam would give a Sil 4, Speed 3 ship a difficulty of 5 and a Gozanti a difficulty of 4.

Yes, we do. And mine is backed up by the rules and by the lore. A freighter, no matter its size, is not going to be capturing ships. That's because its tractor beams are not designed for it. However, a customs ship, even a small one , is going to have very strong tractor beams, designed specifically for capturing ships. So, an Imperial Customs Frigate should be making it difficult for a Sil 4 ship. It should also be making it difficult for a Sil 8 ship. That is because that ship is designed to capture other ships, regardless of their size. It does that through Heavy Tractor Beams.

I believe that our differences on this are irreconcilable.
I have a different interpretation of the lore than you do, and I think that the rules are wrong.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I believe that our differences on this are irreconcilable.
I have a different interpretation of the lore than you do, and I think that the rules are wrong.

Well, the rules are not wrong. They're very functional , and, unlike your system, follow the KISS rule. And that last bit is very important here . Keep it Simple . Don't overly complicate things. Make it as simple as possible with as little math as necessary. Don't bog the game down with calculation after calculation. The RAW does that. Your proposed house rule does not. Your house rule makes things more complex than they need to.

This system is not based upon a lot of "crunch". It is not intended to require heavy use of math or complex computations. Your house rule requires more math than is necessary and bogs down the game; a game which is meant to be fast, fluid and narrative . It is not a tactical simulator . It is not a board game, nor strategic combat game. It's not D&D either. It is a cinematic narrative RPG.

Every one of the proposed house rules you have posted on these forums has been trying to add more and more "crunch" and complexity to the system. This system is not a "numbers crunch" system. It is not designed for crunching a lot of numbers. It is designed to be simple , fluid , and narrative . Your proposed house rules ( all of them , not just the one in this thread) go against that inherent design philosophy.

Keep it Simple.

You have explained your self. Your argument is unconvinsing. Sheilds dont get better just because the ship is bigger. Yet you are having tractor beams get better based on ship size.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, the rules are not wrong. They're very functional , and, unlike your system, follow the KISS rule. And that last bit is very important here . Keep it Simple . Don't overly complicate things. Make it as simple as possible with as little math as necessary. Don't bog the game down with calculation after calculation. The RAW does that. Your proposed house rule does not. Your house rule makes things more complex than they need to.

This system is not based upon a lot of "crunch". It is not intended to require heavy use of math or complex computations. Your house rule requires more math than is necessary and bogs down the game; a game which is meant to be fast, fluid and narrative . It is not a tactical simulator . It is not a board game, nor strategic combat game. It's not D&D either. It is a cinematic narrative RPG.

Every one of the proposed house rules you have posted on these forums has been trying to add more and more "crunch" and complexity to the system. This system is not a "numbers crunch" system. It is not designed for crunching a lot of numbers. It is designed to be simple , fluid , and narrative . Your proposed house rules ( all of them , not just the one in this thread) go against that inherent design philosophy.

Of the 3 house rules I proposed, one of them I somewhat retracted, the other 2 I stand by. Atmospheric Crashing I believe stays true to the system, especially considering that it uses the same rules as falling, with adjustment to make it speed instead of distance.
Aside from that I have made my position clear, and we are just going to end up going in circles indefinitely.

32 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You have explained your self. Your argument is unconvinsing.

I could say the same to you.

32 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Sheilds dont get better just because the ship is bigger. Yet you are having tractor beams get better based on ship size.

Shields DO get better with bigger ships because they are able to mount bigger shield generators and can dedicate more power to their shields. Furthermore, expanding (pardon the pun) upon the balloon analogy, it has to create more balloon to achieve the same strength across the whole ship therefore the shield is "better" even if when you simply measure one spot's "thickness" they are the same. If you mount an X-Wing's shield generator on an ISD the shield strength (if it even existed) would be nearly non-existent because it would be spread so thin. If you mounted an ISD's shield generator (ignoring for the moment that the X-Wing couldn't hope to provide enough power to run it) the shields would be incredibly strong because of the concentration of shielding energy.
"Bigger" is simply a stand-in for more power.

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Of the 3 house rules I proposed, one of them I somewhat retracted, the other 2 I stand by. Atmospheric Crashing I believe stays true to the system, especially considering that it uses the same rules as falling, with adjustment to make it speed instead of distance.
Aside from that I have made my position clear, and we are just going to end up going in circles indefinitely.

I could say the same to you.

Shields DO get better with bigger ships because they are able to mount bigger shield generators and can dedicate more power to their shields. Furthermore, expanding (pardon the pun) upon the balloon analogy, it has to create more balloon to achieve the same strength across the whole ship therefore the shield is "better" even if when you simply measure one spot's "thickness" they are the same. If you mount an X-Wing's shield generator on an ISD the shield strength (if it even existed) would be nearly non-existent because it would be spread so thin. If you mounted an ISD's shield generator (ignoring for the moment that the X-Wing couldn't hope to provide enough power to run it) the shields would be incredibly strong because of the concentration of shielding energy.
"Bigger" is simply a stand-in for more power.

No, they don't get better simply because a ship is bigger. The only thing bigger ships get is more shield zones (4 zones instead of 2). And your analogy is greatly flawed. The X-wing has a shield rating of 1 on the forward and rear arc. A Victory Class Star Destroyer has a Shiled Rating of 2 each Fore, Aft, Port, and Starboard. That's only one more Shield Point. A Cr-90 has two Shield Points fore and aft,m but only one Shield Point each Port and Starboard. The Lambda Class Shuttle, has two Shield Points Fore (one Aft). So, no, size is not an indicator of how strong shields can be. Also, you can't mount Star Destroyer shield generators on an X-Wing. They're significantly bigger than the X-Wing. And that's because they need to cover a larger area, not because they're inherently more powerful. All a ship's size does is determine how larger of a surface area needs to be covered. It does not determine how strong the shields are.

32 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The only thing bigger ships get is more shield zones (4 zones instead of 2). And your analogy is greatly flawed. The X-wing has a shield rating of 1 on the forward and rear arc. A Victory Class Star Destroyer has a Shiled Rating of 2 each Fore, Aft, Port, and Starboard. That's only one more Shield Point. A Cr-90 has two Shield Points fore and aft,m but only one Shield Point each Port and Starboard. The Lambda Class Shuttle, has two Shield Points Fore (one Aft). So, no, size is not an indicator of how strong shields can be. Also, you can't mount Star Destroyer shield generators on an X-Wing. They're significantly bigger than the X-Wing. And that's because they need to cover a larger area, not because they're inherently more powerful. All a ship's size does is determine how larger of a surface area needs to be covered. It does not determine how strong the shields are.

Alright, let's call the material that makes up the shield "Stuff." Shields in Star Wars envelope the ship in Stuff. In order to cover an ISD in Stuff, you need much more Stuff than if you wanted to cover an x-wing in an equal density of Stuff. The average shield rating does tend to go up, but that is a irrelevant. My main point is as regards to how much Stuff a shield generator can generate. The thing about the x-wing with an ISD shield generator was simply about how the Stuff covering the x-wing would be much more dense because it is covering a smaller area (it really would be more mounting the x-wing on a shield generator in that case though).

Basically, the more power, the more Stuff you can generate, and the more area to cover, the more power is required to maintain the same density of Stuff.
Also, I don't think you can deny that there tends to be a scaling (even if slight) in the average shield rating.

(doesn't count ships that are not intended/capable of combat [i.e. JM-5000 Jumpmaster] or space stations)

Sil 3 ~average of 1
Sil 4 ~average of 1.5
Sil 5 ~average of 1.5
Sil 6 ~average of 2
Sil 7 ~average of 2.3 (not counting the Dreadnought as it is clearly an outlier)
Sil 8 ~average of 2.5
Sil 9 ~average of 3

If you will notice, that means that every 3 points of silhouette the average shield strength goes up by one. Just like for my Tractor Beam rules (though I must admit, that wasn't in my mind at the time). If anything, this just goes to further my point.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Alright, let's call the material that makes up the shield "Stuff." Shields in Star Wars envelope the ship in Stuff. In order to cover an ISD in Stuff, you need much more Stuff than if you wanted to cover an x-wing in an equal density of Stuff. The average shield rating does tend to go up, but that is a irrelevant. My main point is as regards to how much Stuff a shield generator can generate. The thing about the x-wing with an ISD shield generator was simply about how the Stuff covering the x-wing would be much more dense because it is covering a smaller area (it really would be more mounting the x-wing on a shield generator in that case though).

Basically, the more power, the more Stuff you can generate, and the more area to cover, the more power is required to maintain the same density of Stuff.
Also, I don't think you can deny that there tends to be a scaling (even if slight) in the average shield rating.

(doesn't count ships that are not intended/capable of combat [i.e. JM-5000 Jumpmaster] or space stations)

Sil 3 ~average of 1
Sil 4 ~average of 1.5
Sil 5 ~average of 1.5
Sil 6 ~average of 2
Sil 7 ~average of 2.3 (not counting the Dreadnought as it is clearly an outlier)
Sil 8 ~average of 2.5
Sil 9 ~average of 3

If you will notice, that means that every 3 points of silhouette the average shield strength goes up by one. Just like for my Tractor Beam rules (though I must admit, that wasn't in my mind at the time). If anything, this just goes to further my point.

The highest level of shields so far, at least in the F&D core rules is a shield rating of 2, regardless of silhouette . So, no, there is no real "scaling" here. The only scale is area covered , not appreciable shield strength. Ships size does have an effect on hull trauma threshold, since larger ships have more structure to them, as a rule. But the shields strength is not determined by size. nor is tractor beam strength.

Think about it, you are the only one touting these house rules, no one else agrees with them, nor that they enhance the game. Rather, everyone has repeatedly told you that they detract from it. That should tell you something.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The highest level of shields so far, at least in the F&D core rules is a shield rating of 2, regardless of silhouette . So, no, there is no real "scaling" here. The only scale is area covered , not appreciable shield strength. Ships size does have an effect on hull trauma threshold, since larger ships have more structure to them, as a rule. But the shields strength is not determined by size. nor is tractor beam strength.

I don't have the FaD CRB, I have the EotE CRB, the AoR CRB, the 2 for the Clone Wars, and supplements for AoR. As a result, pretty much all of the ships I have the books for are military or paramilitary ships (with the exception of the ones I didn't count) and those are going to be the best measuring stick because unlike civilian models (aforementioned JM-5000 Jumpmaster), they are going to have more-or-less close to max shields rather than navigational shields to simply protect from space debris.
Again, size is not the point. The point is power, and the bigger the ship, the more power needed, and the more power that can be generated.

I can't speak for FaD, but I have shown conclusively that average shielding does, in fact, scale in Stuff density as well as quantity (ever seen a starfighter with 4 average defense?).

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Think about it, you are the only one touting these house rules, no one else agrees with them, nor that they enhance the game. Rather, everyone has repeatedly told you that they detract from it. That should tell you something.

And if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you jump to? (to be clear, I'm not saying that your position is akin to jumping off a cliff)

Everyone? Really? Or 5-6 people (with really only 3 pressing the issue)? Other people suggested alternate methods and at least one person suggested a tweak (which I [at least in some form] used). Using the bandwagon fallacy is not a good way to make a case for anything, and in this case I don't think that it is really applicable. How many people viewed and didn't comment or viewed, agreed, and didn't comment? I have been making the case for my system by myself, and it could very well be that people who agreed with me didn't feel a need to jump in on my behalf.

I am not arguing that anyone agrees with me on this, I am simply showing the fallacy of your argument (plus there was that one guy who liked the OP).

Aside from all that, it doesn't matter to me if no one agrees with me. I like this system and it is better for having been put up here. If no one uses this system, I don't care. I can use it myself and revel in its construction during the 3 seconds it takes me to set up the next roll. To me, good rules add to the fun tremendously. Even if I'm just sitting in a chair reading the CRBs.

If I end up realizing that it doesn't make sense, doesn't work, or actually does take too much time, I will come back and gladly eat crow, as I don't like being wrong and want to rectify errors as quickly as possible. I do not think that will be the case though.

As far as you are concerned, why do you care if I use this system?

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Of the 3 house rules I proposed, one of them I somewhat retracted, the other 2 I stand by. Atmospheric Crashing I believe stays true to the system, especially considering that it uses the same rules as falling, with adjustment to make it speed instead of distance.
Aside from that I have made my position clear, and we are just going to end up going in circles indefinitely.

I could say the same to you.

Shields DO get better with bigger ships because they are able to mount bigger shield generators and can dedicate more power to their shields. Furthermore, expanding (pardon the pun) upon the balloon analogy, it has to create more balloon to achieve the same strength across the whole ship therefore the shield is "better" even if when you simply measure one spot's "thickness" they are the same. If you mount an X-Wing's shield generator on an ISD the shield strength (if it even existed) would be nearly non-existent because it would be spread so thin. If you mounted an ISD's shield generator (ignoring for the moment that the X-Wing couldn't hope to provide enough power to run it) the shields would be incredibly strong because of the concentration of shielding energy.
"Bigger" is simply a stand-in for more power.

If you pay attention to the star ship mod rules ships get better sheilding by mounting better sheild generators. Not by being bigger. They only get more zones by being bigher than a threshold

There is norhing in this system for measuring power output. You can modify parts of a ship. But they wont cover power output. Size is a terrible stand in.

13 hours ago, Daeglan said:

If you pay attention to the star ship mod rules ships get better sheilding by mounting better sheild generators. Not by being bigger. They only get more zones by being bigher than a threshold

There is norhing in this system for measuring power output. You can modify parts of a ship. But they wont cover power output. Size is a terrible stand in.

You can improve shielding with a better shield generator yes, but if you would just look at the stats I posted, you will see that the average defense per zone increases as the ships get bigger. This demonstrates greater potential shielding.

Which has more power generation: An x-wing or and ISD? An Arquitens or a Gozanti? Size is the best approximation there is because the bigger the ship, the more power it needs, and the more power it can generate as a result of being able to have a larger reactor. If you think size is a terrible stand-in, what would you suggest be used instead?

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You can improve shielding with a better shield generator yes, but if you would just look at the stats I posted, you will see that the average defense per zone increases as the ships get bigger. This demonstrates greater potential shielding.

Which has more power generation: An x-wing or and ISD? An Arquitens or a Gozanti? Size is the best approximation there is because the bigger the ship, the more power it needs, and the more power it can generate as a result of being able to have a larger reactor. If you think size is a terrible stand-in, what would you suggest be used instead?

No, they don't. The get higher based upon what the ship is designed to do, and what it will go up against. An X-wing has Shields in the 1 Shield point range because it's a snub fighter primarily going up against other snub fighters with only basic laser cannons. A Star Destroyer has Shields in the 2 to 3 shield rating range because it has to go up against Heavy Turbo Lasers . It should be noted that the B-Wing ( Sil 3 ) has a Shield Rating of 2 in its forward Shields, the Sentinel Class Landing Craft (Sil 4) also has a Shield Rating of 2 in both fore and aft shields. The Sil 7 Dreadnought, only has a shield rating of 1 in each of its shield zones. So, it's not the size of the ship, it's its function , and what it's going up against that determines what strength of shields it's likely to have. A Ship of the Line is going to have stronger shields than a freighter, or a starfighter because it has to take on other ships of the line , whereas a freighter simply hauls cargo or passengers, and a snub fighter relies on speed and maneuverability more so than shields or armor.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, they don't. The get higher based upon what the ship is designed to do, and what it will go up against. An X-wing has Shields in the 1 Shield point range because it's a snub fighter primarily going up against other snub fighters with only basic laser cannons. A Star Destroyer has Shields in the 2 to 3 shield rating range because it has to go up against Heavy Turbo Lasers . It should be noted that the B-Wing ( Sil 3 ) has a Shield Rating of 2 in its forward Shields, the Sentinel Class Landing Craft (Sil 4) also has a Shield Rating of 2 in both fore and aft shields. The Sil 7 Dreadnought, only has a shield rating of 1 in each of its shield zones. So, it's not the size of the ship, it's its function , and what it's going up against that determines what strength of shields it's likely to have. A Ship of the Line is going to have stronger shields than a freighter, or a starfighter because it has to take on other ships of the line , whereas a freighter simply hauls cargo or passengers, and a snub fighter relies on speed and maneuverability more so than shields or armor.

Do you think that they would be able to mount shields on an x-wing that give it a rating of 4 in each zone? Do you think they could mount a shield generator on an ISD that would give it a shield rating of 4 in each zone? It is about max potential, and a freighter having weaker shields is about its design, it doesn't need to have strong shields. However, looking at the combat capable ships can give you a good idea of the shield potential for a ship of X size. Ships with minimal to no shields are irrelevant for the above reasons.

Would you agree that an ISD has greater shield potential than an x-wing?

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Do you think that they would be able to mount shields on an x-wing that give it a rating of 4 in each zone? Do you think they could mount a shield generator on an ISD that would give it a shield rating of 4 in each zone? It is about max potential, and a freighter having weaker shields is about its design, it doesn't need to have strong shields. However, looking at the combat capable ships can give you a good idea of the shield potential for a ship of X size. Ships with minimal to no shields are irrelevant for the above reasons.

Would you agree that an ISD has greater shield potential than an x-wing?

If necessary? Yes, on both counts. But is it really necessary for an X-Wing to have a Shield Rating of 4? No.

I think that we are going to be unable to resolve this. I think that X+X=Y, and you think that X+X=Z, so I think that we have different opinions on what X is.

7 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You can improve shielding with a better shield generator yes, but if you would just look at the stats I posted, you will see that the average defense per zone increases as the ships get bigger. This demonstrates greater potential shielding.

Which has more power generation: An x-wing or and ISD? An Arquitens or a Gozanti? Size is the best approximation there is because the bigger the ship, the more power it needs, and the more power it can generate as a result of being able to have a larger reactor. If you think size is a terrible stand-in, what would you suggest be used instead?

You are assuming that is a result of power. You dont actually know that. The mod rules show it can be because of better quality generators.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You are assuming that is a result of power. You dont actually know that. The mod rules show it can be because of better quality generators.

Better quality generators increase the efficiency of the power consumption.

11 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Better quality generators increase the efficiency of the power consumption.

Sure. But that does not mean bigger ships have better shields because they have more power. They might have better quality generators that are more efficient

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Sure. Bit that does not mean bigger ships have better shields because they have more power.

But it means that they have more potential.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

But it means that they have more potential.

No it doesnt. You are focussed on 1 quality of the ship when there are many factors incolved. Then you are building.your math around that is one quality. Which is going to give you flawed results. You would better off just sticking with raw and throwing in boosts and setbacka when appropriate

Just now, Daeglan said:

No it doesnt. You are focussed on 1 quality of the ship when there are many factors incolved. Then you are building.your math around that is one quality. Which is going to give you flawed results. You would better off just sticking with raw and throwing in boosts and setbacka when appropriate

What (aside from "it's too complicated") is better about the RAW in this case?

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

What (aside from "it's too complicated") is better about the RAW in this case?

It is more flexible. It is faster. It is more predictable. It doesnt create weirds edge cases it has been play tested and you are the first person who has complained since the edge of the empire beta.

Just now, Daeglan said:

It is more flexible. It is faster. It is more predictable. It doesnt create weirds edge cases it has been play tested and you are the first person who has complained since the edge of the empire beta.

More flexible? It seems pretty rigid to me. Do you have any weird edge cases to show me? No? Oh that's right, you haven't tested the system.
I'm not pushing to get them to change the official rules, most people wouldn't care, and my system is not great for mass consumption as a result of the prep work being unlike anything in the rest of the system. I just like the system and I think that it is a good system.