More consistent cluster table

[Atarlost]

Code: [Select]

Number of projectiles         average hit ratio
2                                      0.708
3                                      0.667
4                                      0.792
5                                      0.633
6                                      0.667
7                                      0.627
8                                      0.635
9                                      0.691
10                                    0.631
12                                    0.678
15                                    0.633
20                                    0.635
30                                    0.633
40                                    0.635

They appear to be trying to converge on 0.635 or 0.634, but there are some severe outliers due to an unwillingness to have values out of order and a refusal to have a minimum result of less than 1/3 rounded down.  We can do better. 

#	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
3	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	3	3	2
4	1	1	2	2	2	3	3	3	2	4	4
5	1	2	2	3	3	3	3	4	4	5	5
6	1	2	3	3	4	4	4	5	5	6	6
7	2	2	3	4	4	4	4	6	6	7	7
8	3	3	4	4	5	5	5	6	6	8	8
9	3	3	5	5	5	5	5	7	8	9	9
10	3	3	4	6	6	6	6	8	8	10	10
12	4	3	5	8	8	8	8	10	10	12	12
15	5	5	6	9	9	9	9	12	12	15	15
20	6	6	9	12	12	12	12	15	15	20	20
30	10	10	12	18	18	18	18	24	24	30	30
40	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

This gives more consistent damage loss. 

Code: [Select]

Number of projectiles         average hit ratio
2                                      0.639
3                                      0.639
4                                      0.646
5                                      0.633
6                                      0.639
7                                      0.627
8                                      0.635
9                                      0.642
10                                    0.631
12                                    0.648
15                                    0.633
20                                    0.635
30                                    0.633
40                                    0.635

It should be possible to achieve the same results without dropping the minimum cluster hits on the 6 and 12 rows, but I've spent enough time poking a calculator and wrestling with tables for now. 

[Sabelkatten]

I've tried doing the same thing. But having a non-linear increase in the number of hits causes weird results when things like Artemis and AMS gets involved.

Also, regarding the '2' table; UACs really need the higher number of hits... Thought that's easily fixed by just giving them a +1 on the cluster roll.

[Atarlost]

I've tried doing the same thing. But having a non-linear increase in the number of hits causes weird results when things like Artemis and AMS gets involved.

Also, regarding the '2' table; UACs really need the higher number of hits... Thought that's easily fixed by just giving them a +1 on the cluster roll.

The only inversions are on the 3 and 4 rows and the 4 row could be 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4.  I didn't do that because it would put all the change at the low end instead of distributing it, but if that change is made Artemis can only reduce damage on the 3 row, which is only used by the MML-3, which it would be very silly to use with Artemis. 

AMS rules are just plain screwy and it's not worth leaving things broken just to avoid having to change them.  Right now AMS stop more missiles when there are more missiles coming in in a short amount of time (ie. from a single volley from a single launcher) rather than being overwhelmed.  It would make more sense if AMS rolled for some value on the cluster table and stopped that number of missiles for the round with a preference for longer ranged (more tracking time) or higher damage (larger target) missiles first depending on how good you want mixed volleys to be. 

Ultras are their own mess of problems.  I don't think they'd be worth using with the 2 row nerfed, but I don't think they're worth using as it is now so that didn't really enter into my thinking.  I think perhaps they shouldn't use the cluster table at all but do something with margin of success.  The cluster table is a reasonable approximation of fragmentation explosions (LBX) and with range based modifiers of shotguns (HAG) and missiles with dodgy seekers can work however the rules say they do, but in my FPS experience landing multiple hits with burst fire weapons is much more based on skill than luck. 

[idea weenie]

They appear to be trying to converge on 0.635 or 0.634, but there are some severe outliers due to an unwillingness to have values out of order and a refusal to have a minimum result of less than 1/3 rounded down.  We can do better. 

#	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2
3	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	3	3	2
4	1	1	2	2	2	3	3	3	2	4	4
5	1	2	2	3	3	3	3	4	4	5	5
6	1	2	3	3	4	4	4	5	5	6	6
7	2	2	3	4	4	4	4	6	6	7	7
8	3	3	4	4	5	5	5	6	6	8	8
9	3	3	5	5	5	5	5	7	8	9	9
10	3	3	4	6	6	6	6	8	8	10	10
12	4	3	5	8	8	8	8	10	10	12	12
15	5	5	6	9	9	9	9	12	12	15	15
20	6	6	9	12	12	12	12	15	15	20	20
30	10	10	12	18	18	18	18	24	24	30	30
40	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12

Out of curiosity, on the above table from your post, how many missiles would hit if I rolled a '7' on the cluster chart when firing 40 munitions?

[Atarlost]

Out of curiosity, on the above table from your post, how many missiles would hit if I rolled a '7' on the cluster chart when firing 40 munitions?

Whatever you do on the current chart.  It got mangled in the table coding, but it's a multiple of 5 tubes and no multiple of 5 tubes needed changing. 

[idea weenie]

Whatever you do on the current chart.  It got mangled in the table coding, but it's a multiple of 5 tubes and no multiple of 5 tubes needed changing.

If you look at your first post, it looks like you copied the 2d6 top row and put that in place for the '40' row.

In your cluster table in the first post, if you look at the bottom row for when firing 40 projectiles, anywhere from 2 to 12 of them will hit