| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:17 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | A related issue. Speaking of which, it suggests giving navicomps die code ratings that could be used to either add to the skill roll, or negate waypoint dice. For instance, if aship had a +4D navicomp it could negate up to 4D of addional time from waypoints. I see this as a canceling out D per D (it is simplier). So using our Tatooine-Coruscant example, a 4D navicomp could reduce the 8D from waypoints to 4D. |
Personally, I've long liked the idea of different qualities of nav computer. The problem, there, is that WEG never introduced different qualities, so these are not in widespread use.
Perhaps a solution would be to use the quality of the sensors. After all, it's up to the sensors to be able to locate the tell-tale signs of where the ship might be. I think the 'scan' distance ought to be used... perhaps divide by five, because they seen to come in increments of that number.
As to the travel times of the nav computer no longer being accurate, we can perhaps automatically calculate an estimated travel time based off a 4d astrogation skill and a standard acceptable risk of, say 10%, with default settings. That should offer us a standard formula by which the current standard travel time can be multiplied. Before we do that we need to hammer out what the formula is going to be. I'll work on that later. That way we can also be sure we're on the same page. Of course, if you have ambitions of writing down the formula of what we've already talked about, then go for it!
| atgxtg wrote: | | As a side issue, you might let astromechs treat thier astorgation skill the same as navicmp dice. That is they can divide it up between skill roll, and waypoints. |
I think that would be a great idea if we were going to introduce different levels of nav computer.
As I'm thinking about it, we can also assume a standard quality of nav computer per class of ship. Starfighters with nav computers, but without astromech droids, like the A-Wing, would have very limited capabilities. Of course, these tend to have just 2-jump capacities and are preprogrammed to allow for hit-and-run operations. Freighters would normally have better, yachts better still, scouts... and up to capital ships. Then, we can perhaps have a separate page for a nav computer emporium where we can introduce upgraded nav computer systems.
Anyway, something to think about.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, that would be done automatically at the same time as the astrogation roll. |
I though the extra time was spent calculating while at each waypoint, so it wouldnt happen until after the ship has started the jump, not before. Or did I misunderstand something? |
Well, once the user has entered the amount of waypoints he or she wants to use, then we know all we need to know. Provided there's no mishap, we can have the nav computer roll all the dice at once.
| atgxtg wrote: | | BTW, If I did miss something and the 8D is rolled with the subrogation, then can somebody keep redoing to subrogation so as to reroll the waypoint dice and try to make the route faster? |
Not in my mind anyway, because the time spent at each waypoint won't be known 'till they're actually there. I see that moment as analogous to the 'searching for satellites' moment with a GPS device. Sometimes that just takes an annoyingly long time, and there's no telling how long that will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael wrote: |
Personally, I've long liked the idea of different qualities of nav computer. The problem, there, is that WEG never introduced different qualities, so these are not in widespread use.
Perhaps a solution would be to use the quality of the sensors. |
Works for me. Although we dont have a way to replace sensors. Still the sensors could be a good default rating.
| Quote: |
As to the travel times of the nav computer no longer being accurate, we can perhaps automatically calculate an estimated travel time based off a 4d astrogation skill and a standard acceptable risk of, say 10%, with default settings. That should offer us a standard formula by which the current standard travel time can be multiplied. Before we do that we need to hammer out what the formula is going to be. I'll work on that later. That way we can also be sure we're on the same page. Of course, if you have ambitions of writing down the formula of what we've already talked about, then go for it! |
Okay. If we assume that the average trip will be of Moderate difficulty, then we can divide the standard duration by the average duration to get the number of waypoints and subtract 3.5 hours per waypoint to get the bais time. For instance, if we say 13 is the typical difficulty, and 80/13 = 6 waypoints, we can take 21 hours off the Tattoine-Corsuscant time and use 139+ waypoints.
That would work out to multipliying the current travel times by about 0.875. You could vary this a bit if you want to use a different number as the default. 15, would be about 89%.. Id suggest going with something like 90% and a default of 15. It will be close to the navicomp values and still be easy math. Or just go with the values listed and expect shorter hops and a good navicomp.
| Quote: |
ill the same as navicmp dice. That is they can divide it up between skill roll, and waypoints. |
I think that would be a great idea if we were going to introduce different levels of nav computer. [/quote]
Or use the sensors or what not. Or we could just give all ships a default die code. 2D seems about right.
| Quote: |
As I'm thinking about it, we can also assume a standard quality of nav computer per class of ship. |
Yup. I like defauting to sensors,or adapting the handheld computer rules and just come up with a standard navicomp. Youve cme this far, so the RAW isnt an issue.
| Quote: | | Well, once the user has entered the amount of waypoints he or she wants to use, then we know all we need to know. Provided there's no mishap, we can have the nav computer roll all the dice at once. |
But the operation dont accurally occur at the same time, right? I mean, sure, 90% of the time, you make the jump, roll astrogation and then roll time, but that is just steamlining,right?
| Quote: |
Not in my mind anyway, because the time spent at each waypoint won't be known 'till they're actually there. I see that moment as analogous to the 'searching for satellites' moment with a GPS device. Sometimes that just takes an annoyingly long time, and there's no telling how long that will be. |
That was sorta what I thought. That is why the roll at once thing surprised me. I could see rolling each waypoint individually. This system of waypoints means that ships will now be sitting around at a waypoint for a few hours making them vulnerable to pirates. But I could just be paranoid.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | Okay. If we assume that the average trip will be of Moderate difficulty, then we can divide the standard duration by the average duration to get the number of waypoints and subtract 3.5 hours per waypoint to get the bais time. For instance, if we say 13 is the typical difficulty, and 80/13 = 6 waypoints, we can take 21 hours off the Tattoine-Corsuscant time and use 139+ waypoints.
That would work out to multipliying the current travel times by about 0.875. You could vary this a bit if you want to use a different number as the default. 15, would be about 89%.. Id suggest going with something like 90% and a default of 15. It will be close to the navicomp values and still be easy math. Or just go with the values listed and expect shorter hops and a good navicomp. |
Is that how the math works out on your end? We must not be on the same page. Here's how I'm thinking about it:
I'm not sure assuming a difficulty level, such as 'moderate' is the way to think about this on the back-end side of things. I think it's best to make it a percentage-chance-of-success per leg to the power of the number of legs. The function of this should be no more than 10%.
So, for the difficulty 160/2=80 of the Tatooine-Corsuscant example, that would mean 14 legs (13 waypoints) of difficulty 6. With 4d in Astrogation, there's a 99.61% chance of success, to the power of 14 = 94.67%. If we were do increase the risk to 12 legs of difficulty 7, the overall chance of success goes down to 86.93%, which would be above the 10% risk-of-failure level.
So, if there is a 3.5x(legs-1) additional travel time, that would work out to a multiplier of (3.5*13=45.5 45.5/160= 0.284) 1.28 to a route of 160 hours.
To a route of 80 hours this same calculation works out to (40/6= diff 7, 93.24%>90%, so 6 legs meaning 5 waypoints 5x3.5=17.5. 17.5/80=0.219) a multiplier of 1.22.
For 40 hours, using the same calculation, there would be a multiplier of 1.26. We're not able to formulate a clean linear relationship because we have to have discrete increments of difficulty. So, instead of a formula applied to the base travel time, it might be best to use a pre-calculated table.
| atgxtg wrote: | | But the operation dont accurally occur at the same time, right? I mean, sure, 90% of the time, you make the jump, roll astrogation and then roll time, but that is just steamlining,right? |
Yes. Essentially, the computer would roll the chance of failure for each leg. For each leg it would roll a d6 and keep a running tally. Once it determined that no legs resulted in mishaps it would add the tallied time to the base travel time and tell you the result.
In case of a failure at one of the legs, it would offer the tally up to that point and tell you which number waypoint you're ended up at. In that event, the GM can look along the presumed route and figure out where the players' ship wound up at based on the waypoint number.
| atgxtg wrote: | | That was sorta what I thought. That is why the roll at once thing surprised me. I could see rolling each waypoint individually. This system of waypoints means that ships will now be sitting around at a waypoint for a few hours making them vulnerable to pirates. But I could just be paranoid. |
Well, it the players are planning to go through pirate-infested space, it could definitely make it interesting.
Yeah, I really wish I could display routes in my system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the basic quality of navcomputers is represented in the hyperdrive multiplier.
Reason Old Republic hyperdrives are all x10 and up is simpler navcomputer technology. And this is reflected by the fact larger WEG old republic cruisers sometimes have limited navcomputers.
even with "no navicomputer installed" the hyperdrive still has a data port entry to program in manual calculations. It still has a management system and avionics element, it's still digitalised technology.
More than a speed rating, I think the hyperdrive multiplier represents a basic data processing capability for a given power unit, its computer quality. Installing a full navicomputer is just like adding an enhanced module, a bit like a multirole software update for a air-air Raptor. It's still got the basic quality with or without the enhancement.
I think then navcomputer quality is represented by the hyperdrive multiplier of the engine its designed to accommodate.
But you do see varied quality in limited navcomputers as time goes on. Rebel era and before, usually 2 jumps. Endor 3 jumps. NJO 4 jumps.
Astromechs just about top out at R2 units and just get more skilled programming in more expensive models, like the R6 which still has ten jumps and is wired for starfighters. I think the R7 has twelve. R1 I can't remember, two or three jumps but they're not really designed to be moved, sort of a rudimentary limited navcomputer more than a droid really that version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | I thought the basic quality of navcomputers is represented in the hyperdrive multiplier. |
I can see how that's an argument. I've always just assumed that the multiplier was a function of the drive.
So how do you suggest your argument impacts the house rule discussion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You were going to attribute computer power die to navcomputers, I'm suggesting it maybe superfluous and relates to another phase of the navigational task.
On boards ships computers already have a power rating, seen it specified or suggested in some WEG book or other, I think it was 10-20D for starships and 30D for planetary computers.
starfighters are a special case class of vessel, so I start all normal starship rules with space transports and scout ships, our house rule is these are the smallest vessels with proper shipboard computer cores, starfighters just have avionics systems and maybe a droid plug.
So by this measure your YT-1300 already has 10D computer power say. Your Rebel cruiser might be 15D.
When you're going to make a hyperspace calculation with their full featured navcomputers, you start with a comp.prog/repair roll to go through the computer for the appropriate charts. GM rules how out of date they are. It's all die assisted by computer power. Most of the time it's going to be a free action, but you may want players to roll if you're hunting for the charts to Byss for example.
Then with the chart referenced, you plot a course. Now you make your astrogation roll, no computer bonus die.
You might say well, military cruisers with powerful computer cores should astrogate better than bulk freighters with two dozen droid brains running things.
But they do. x1 or x2 compared to x3 or x4, that's where the difference in processing power is in terms of crunching numbers. Sort of a combination of more powerful mechanical drives, and better data handling/processing.
Like the way putting an F-15 management system on an F-105 engine isn't going to help it much. Putting an F-105 management system on an F-15 though will kill the engines. They're package deals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | You were going to attribute computer power die to navcomputers, I'm suggesting it maybe superfluous and relates to another phase of the navigational task. |
Yeah, I liked the idea of different levels of computer, and this WEG source you mention is going in the same direction of thought.
I think your 'phase of the navigational task' phrase is interesting. What 'phases' do you imagine?
My own thought is that the navigational system has different components to it. This includes the raw data that is periodically updated with downloads from the Space Ministry when it docks at a spaceport. It also includes the sensors which collect data for later use, but also calibrate the ship's location. Finally, it includes the autopilot which actually steers the ship when it is hyperspace.
The act of astrogation (using the skill) is about inputting the desired course, setting the desired waypoints and safety margins, and making sure the above-mentioned components are working together well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
What if the difference between a limited navcomputer and a full navcomputer is having a computer core. Space transports are large enough for one, although generally they use slaved droid brains to the same effect.
But starfighters don't have the power and tonnage requirements for a computer core, so end up with various quality limited navcomputers.
It would then follow logically, in a full navcomputer, the charts are stored in the shipboard computer central data core.
For example in at least one WEG official adventure book you are instructed to have the players roll separately comp.prog/repair to search the charts for the desired system, and then following this an astrogation roll to plot a course there from where you are.
Ergo computer power already given in other sourcebooks, of say 10D for the transports computer core, adds to your roll to find the system you want. But the astrogation roll is without bonus power die as it is to simply enter the data coordinates of your choosing from the charts and the navcomputer churns out finite results, variation being only human error or unforseen circumstance.
At least, as you said adding the house rules discussion, we've been using this. Open to something better, but this has been working. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | What if the difference between a limited navcomputer and a full navcomputer is having a computer core. Space transports are large enough for one, although generally they use slaved droid brains to the same effect.
But starfighters don't have the power and tonnage requirements for a computer core, so end up with various quality limited navcomputers.
It would then follow logically, in a full navcomputer, the charts are stored in the shipboard computer central data core.
For example in at least one WEG official adventure book you are instructed to have the players roll separately comp.prog/repair to search the charts for the desired system, and then following this an astrogation roll to plot a course there from where you are. |
Right, so from my components understanding, the computer core is that which is capable of actually plotting the routes that get the ship from point A to point B. Once the route is plotted, it is simply a set of directions, like what you get and print out from Google Maps or MapQuest. (Turn at the second star to the right.)
Astromech Droids do not have that capability of plotting the routes, though many can interface with a nav computer to instruct the nav computer what to plot. Astromechs are, however, capable of having those routes, once plotted, downloaded into their systems so that they can act as the starfighter's lightspeed autopilot. The same goes for, say, an A-Wing fighter, which doesn't have an astromech droid, but it can download two plotted routes so that it can get in and get out of particular places to fulfill its mission, whatever that might be.
The problem with Astromechs and A-Wings is that you can't change your mind on where you want to go. In terms of an R2 Astromechs with the capacity for 5 plotted routes, you may use one route to get you to B, and have four remaining routes plotted from B to A, C, D, and E.
Astrogation skill, is about knowing how to use these systems and prevent the 'computeriness' of those systems from getting you in trouble. It's kind of like when my wife used a GPS to get her to go one place and the GPS plotted the shortest route... along a winding mountain road in winter... because the GPS device did not have the programmed judgement to know that this was a bad idea. Astrogation Skill is the ability to use intelligent judgement, which is not the same as having data and being able to compute shortest paths.
Now that I am writing this, I think it would actually be useful to have astrogation mishaps of a different natures. The ones listed in the book are of mechanical failure, unknown object, or mynocs, rather than judgement failure. An Astrogation failure would be to allow the computer to plot a route through pirate-infested space, where it is more likely for Pirates to pull you out of hyperspace with a gravity well. The nav computer wouldn't know about pirates, whereas a skilled astrogator would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I mentioned in a thread a little while ago I had gone through the starfighter combat system and basic tech in game and essentially tried to convert as much as I could to analoguous jet fighter technologies used today.
Modern jet fighters use navigational flight computers. We substitute these for the navcomputer/hyperspace system used in SW.
I was basically describing how that nav system works. Limited navcomputers are like the Russian setups used by Frontal Aviation (recently the VVS underwent its first complete reorganisation since 1942 and multiple subdivisions of the air force infrastructure no longer exist, so this is speaking from the Soviet period to the 90s).
Anyway jets use a waypoints system analoguous to the hyperspace astrogation gazetter. The common routés, including battlezones are already plotted all throughout europe. The attack plan followed by Desert Storm, is from the 1970s.
What it comes down to is how many waypoints your plane's on board computer can store. NATO planes use AWACS and three channel radio communications systems with terrain mapping, HDD render, datalinking and ground/forward station networks. That's if you fly an F-15.
If you fly a Fulcrum you've got two waypoints (all the computer is capable of storing), no terrain mapping or HDD render or anything like that and no external support without ground controllers (GCI).
If you want more you have to call for PVO interceptors to meet you en routé and datalink updates, though you still won't be able to program in any new waypoints without deleting the two you have.
They're not hyperspace routés you download or enter into an astromech. They're waypoints.
You might use five for one routé. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's very interesting. I'll have to think about how your analogy differs from mine and what this might mean for thinking about what we're modeling.
However, from the sound of it, the waypoint system is essentially a network of flight-paths between waypoints. Do I understand that correctly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yup. (at least) 2 waypoints = one routé
although you might call your starting waypoint where you are, but military protocol would be never put too much strategic Intelligence in your plane.
The first waypoint will almost always be a rendesvous point somewhere reasonably near, but incapable of detecting home base. Like a nearby system among a bunch of systems.
And A-Wing for example, would program a staging point and a destination. It would then rendesvous back at the staging point. It is incapable of returning to home base without either
a) boarding a rebel cruiser at the rendesvous
b) navigating by seat of the pants, using hyperspace without a navcomputer waypoint entry.
Putting home base and destination in an A-Wing, is a really bad idea. You wouldn't use it's 2 jump waypoint capability to do that.
And you need two waypoints entered for one routé unless you're manually already en routé (ie. dropped off by a cruiser at the first waypoint, then program in two more and get one free jump).
just had a thought...why not use the FA/PVO system and have X-Wings datalink updates to A-Wings at staging areas...
hmm...
this could get interesting..
oh sorry, what I'm saying is programming a routé is what the pilot does in his head or with a calculator (computer core), the navcomputer just handles waypoint entries.
Eg. tattooine to kuat. Gonna take weeks as direct waypoints but if I plan a routé and enter manual waypoints, like hit the Corellian Run for much of the journey (2 waypoints required), then go from there (more waypoints required), my journey is days.
Navcomputers are used like that. They don't plot routés. They just take you to waypoints. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | Yup. (at least) 2 waypoints = one routé |
Okay - so if it's a network, then it's at least in the ballpark of how I am thinking.
| vanir wrote: | | Putting home base and destination in an A-Wing, is a really bad idea. You wouldn't use it's 2 jump waypoint capability to do that. |
That's a very good point from a counter-intelligence point of view. It would definitely put a premium on mobile platforms.
| vanir wrote: | | just had a thought...why not use the FA/PVO system and have X-Wings datalink updates to A-Wings at staging areas... |
To a degree, I think the technological limitations make for good/interesting complications around which starfighter deployment strategy can be built. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree on technical limitations. I'm still playing around with how to get datalinking in game and what benefits/restrictions work nicely.
Keep in mind however, at a point the Players will simply send souped up freighters bristling with guns to do what their A-Wings couldn't, if the GM plays hardball. I found all you achieve is removing A-Wings from the game (ie. from player interest).
The main thing is the approach. Most players assume the navcomputer is plotting a whole course for them. It doesn't and this is reflected in travel times. It just goes to waypoints, the pilot plots the course by deciding the waypoints.
If you just jump in your freighter at tatooine, and enter alderaan, it doesn't plot a course there. It just goes there, directly to the waypoint you just entered: alderaan.
It's very advanced tech, it will try to avoid anomolies and such as best it can using emergency reaction procedures but it's a bit like hitting the gas pedal on the highway and closing your eyes.
So in game you enter a bunch of waypoints on a planned routé to alderaan, a series of safe, easy jumps if you like, or an unusual approach to the system for a tactical exercise.
You might not exit hyperspace between waypoints, but each takes a "jump" slot in a limited navcomputer or an astromech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Agree on technical limitations. I'm still playing around with how to get datalinking in game and what benefits/restrictions work nicely.
Keep in mind however, at a point the Players will simply send souped up freighters bristling with guns to do what their A-Wings couldn't, if the GM plays hardball. I found all you achieve is removing A-Wings from the game (ie. from player interest).
The main thing is the approach. Most players assume the navcomputer is plotting a whole course for them. It doesn't and this is reflected in travel times. It just goes to waypoints, the pilot plots the course by deciding the waypoints, which he'll have to look up on charts.
If you just jump in your freighter at tatooine, and enter alderaan, it doesn't plot a course there. It just goes there, directly to the waypoint you just entered: alderaan.
It's very advanced tech, it will try to avoid anomolies and such as best it can using emergency reaction procedures but it's a bit like hitting the gas pedal on the highway and closing your eyes.
So in game you enter a bunch of waypoints on a planned routé to alderaan, a series of safe, easy jumps if you like, or an unusual approach to the system for a tactical exercise.
You might not exit hyperspace between waypoints, but each takes a "jump" slot in a limited navcomputer or an astromech.
Say for example, the time it's supposed to take to program in navigational coordinates. This is where you hand the player the astrogation gazetter and whatever galaxy maps you have and you say, "Okay, show me the routé and list the waypoints you're going to enter."
That takes a few minutes. Rest of the players continue holding off those TIE.
The astrogation roll is later. This stage, if he's got questions about charts and maps and routés and navigation, it's comp.prog/repair rolls for insight. The astrogation roll is when it's all done, now you roll for result of the flight plan that day, that time. If you've got the one routé you're going to take on different days, using the same waypoints, you just roll astrogation each time, a roll that doesn't plot anything, just puts it in motion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
