Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aklyon]

I originally did have four stats (including massiveness) for defenses, but the fourth one ended up being entirely useless half the time after I'd thought about it for a bit.

As for the rest, I can think of what I want to say but not how to describe it very well, so I'll respond to it tomorrowish.

[10ebbor10]

My idea with the forager teams was something of a slash-and-burn mission; they harvest. Not capture.

I was thinking Assimilation Vessels would just give like a reduced Growth amount if not paired with the Forager Teams, since the metals and rocks can only be used inefficiently without biomass to contain them.

Maybe 1 Growth per turn for every 3-4 Growth points put into Growth gain using limited resources? And 1 Growth per turn for every 6-8 points for limitless resource ones(Giant Chlorophyll solar panels, basically).

I think 0 Growth is the fairest number. That ability is already the strongest one currently in the game, and it doesn't need a mechanic by which it reinforces itself to be even stronger.

Really, from the original description :

((Akylon, I think I worked out a bit better/more clearly how I intended Growth to work; it's a stat that can be used to grow new weapons or defenses, repair things, build specialized stuff that isn't a weapon/defense, or boost castle stats(other than Growth, obviously). It's gained at a passive rate of 1 per turn, and takes a turn to use(it doesn't use up deployment stuff or anything, it's just that whatever I want it to get done with isn't finished until the start of next turn). Existing castle stats and weapons/defenses/etc. can be recycled to produce growth, without loss, at the following exchange rate: 1 Growth point per castle stat point, 1 growth point per 10 weapon or defense points. Recyclying happens at the beginning of the turn, so the item recycled is still lost but the growth points are not available until next turn(thus keeping a reserve can be handy). Repairs cost 1 growth to restore twice it's worth in integrity(which, for weapons/defenses, means 8 integrity points restored, rather than 20, and means 2 non-combat(4 combat) integrity points for the castle) and take a turn just like production does.).

By my calculations, you have 132 growth points stored in various weaponry, defenses and stats. Roughly half of that can be accessed without affecting the effectiveness of your ship. This means that if you get an infinite source of supply, or even a finite one, you can easily get 10 growth per turn without any negative effects, whatsoever.

I still have that idea for a way to balance the game stats, but it's long and I haven't worked it all the ay out yet. A big part of it is giving speed and specialization more concrete roles(speed might affect range, for example, if that was part of the unique part of the weapon(being long ranged, that is), and making massiveness based on total points, with more being proportionately required the more points in the weapon(thus, your only weapon is the DOOMSDAY CANNON 9000...or you have approximately ten thousand birds armed with knives; it's your choice, both have advantage and disadvantage).

I think it would be simpler to just limit the total amount of stat points a vessel can have, and use massiveness as health points or something like that.

Also, I'd advise damage to weapons(not defenses though) affect the ship more integrally somehow, while also having the possibility of secondary explosions, depending on the weapon. Damage to defenses would work similarly, but less damage to the ship, if specialization. I advise that Tanking weapons actually prevent more damage than their remaining integrity has, if they get overkilled beyond a certain amount(armor plate with 4 integrity left gets hit by a single GIANT LAZOR; the GIANT LAZOR deals 12 damage, the armor plate bites it, but prevents 8 damage, not just 4, due to the overkill-shield preventing half of the left over damage from going through(doesn't necessarily need to work in that precise way/numbers, but you get the idea; maybe )). Just shows the way tanking defenses would/should work, I feel. However...damage left over from one armor plate of tanking if there are multiple would get through to the ship, rather than being tanked by other armor plates(typically; half the point of specialization is why the stuff is unique).

Also, I want to rework the defenses system to have at least three stats that have an effect on gameplay(Massiveness just doesn't count...). Two doesn't cut it, in terms of variety and synergy available.

Why not combine the two problems. 1 stat for damage reduction, 1 stat for evasion, 1 stat for tanking damage.

Also, I protest Ebbor's new ship design on multiple counts of skullduggery and minmaxing.

It is, as you might have noticed, suprisingly similair to your own design. Perhaps that is why you're upset. In fact, I would argue that my vessel is a more balanced version of yours. (Barring the infinite bulkheads, which, was a joke, in order to make a point.)

0 Massiveness weapons are bullshit through and through

For what reason? I do not have infinite 0 massiveness weapons, and the list notes that for purposes of the max weapon cap, the massiveness of this weapon is one. In fact, giving it 1 massiveness and 1 damage is probably a better idea, as that would let it do some lasting damage while only having a minor effect on speed

and infinite armor bulkheads makes him effectively invincible unless you can deal over 130 damage in one turn, with current rules as I understand them. That, plus the continued general min-maxi-ness(which isn't actually illegal but still makes me squint loudly in annoyance, disappointment, and eye-dust) makes me waggle my finger at you, ebbor, with a ferocious intensity.

It's just a more blatant example of how your growth system works in regards with defense. And it was, in fact, intended to create this response to make my point exactly.

Because basically, you have an ability which let's you increase your defenses and weaponry, (or completely rewire those at will), which can also be used to boost said ability, and also added an abilities which let you override the weapon caps, as well adding an automatically min-maxing armor. Sure, the GM, as of yet, has not approved any of these, but neither has he approved my sheet. Aside of that, you also started with twice the normal weapons cap of weaponry, which basically let's you ignore the 1 turn wait limit on your ability.

Following my numbers mentioned above, you could easily get 10 growth per turn using your proposal for non-limited growth, 20 for limited growth. Which translates into either 2, or 4 fully optimized defense systems per turn.

You're being just a tad hypocritical there.

[flame99]

Keep on truckin'

-snip-

...
*Flameboy99 steps out of the room*

[Rolepgeek]

Considering that growth takes a turn to use, or two if it's recycled, and the speed at which combat tends to happen, I disagree, Ebbor. Currently, I'm sticking with the assumption that my Squadrons take up massiveness capacity when in use, and I only have a single tanking defense with a measly 16 Integrity. None of my weapon's are optimized for the current ruleset, as it is. It takes me a good 6 points of Growth to get a 60-point weapon, or 4 for a Defense, and beyond that and increasing my castle's base stats, there's not much I can do with it, and base stats only go so far. You say it's the most powerful in the game, and in one sense, it is; it's adaptable. However, the Fluxxstone, for example, uses it's raw Fluxx to great effect, defensively, as it passively gains tanking defenses. That doesn't make it unbalanced.

How about this, then;

Recycled systems only regain half of the Growth used to make them.

Would that make you more comfortable with it? The passive gain kinda needs to stay, or it's not really 'Growth' it's 'Change'.


Also, you're basically making the assumption that I'll abuse it. Now, you could say that I'm making the same assumption, but if all your weapons are min-maxed, you can't help but use them, if you're found in combat. (also don't forget recycling things takes a turn, too)

[10ebbor10]

Considering that growth takes a turn to use, or two if it's recycled, and the speed at which combat tends to happen, I disagree, Ebbor.

Considering you have, by my latest calculation 132 growth points, this is kind of pointless. You have sufficient points to cycle your weapons and defenses without ever needing to worry about reduced efficiency due to having not enough free points for both weaponry and defenses.

Currently, I'm sticking with the assumption that my Squadrons take up massiveness capacity when in use, and I only have a single tanking defense with a measly 16 Integrity.

Not that you couldn't change that, off course. Besides, it works just as well with specialized weaponry. In fact, it works even better with specialized weaponry. A 20 speciality, 15 massiveness, 5 structure weapon will dodge a hit more often than not, after all.

None of my weapon's are optimized for the current ruleset, as it is. It takes me a good 6 points of Growth to get a 60-point weapon, or 4 for a Defense, and beyond that and increasing my castle's base stats, there's not much I can do with it, and base stats only go so far.

There's a starting limit on base stats, but no in-game limit.

You say it's the most powerful in the game, and in one sense, it is; it's adaptable. However, the Fluxxstone, for example, uses it's raw Fluxx to great effect, defensively, as it passively gains tanking defenses. That doesn't make it unbalanced.

No really, it is more powerful than dedicated abilities. It's both versatile and strong, and more importantly, it stacks, and is never expended. For example, Heaven's Acropolis gains 1 charge every 3 turns, which it can, amongst others, use for a 1d4 speed boost. You can, per turn, add a permanent +1 boost, which you can re-utilize whenever you like. The Flux, which you mentioned

You have :

- Guaranteed 1 per turn gain
- Infinite re-usability
- Can do, literally, everything
- Permanent effects

Few ships have even 1 of those things. Most don't. Your system is only marginally weaker than some others, but it has no drawbacks whatsoever.

How about this, then;

Recycled systems only regain half of the Growth used to make them.

Would that make you more comfortable with it? The passive gain kinda needs to stay, or it's not really 'Growth' it's 'Change'.

A fairer system would drop recycling altogether, and would limit passive gain to clouds, ground or some other limiting condition. Or would make effects temporary, or impose a cap on some of these things.

Also, you're basically making the assumption that I'll abuse it. Now, you could say that I'm making the same assumption, but if all your weapons are min-maxed, you can't help but use them, if you're found in combat. (also don't forget recycling things takes a turn, too)

The notion that you would forget to replace your defenses is about as sensible as the notion that I would not fire my weaponry.

Having game balance rely on the fact that one of the players feigns incompetence is problematic.

Spoiler: Comparison of Abilities (click to show/hide)

Devastator airship : Use damage absorbed by 1  specific defense system to rapidly jump
     - Dangerous method of gathering (Relies effectively on just barely avoiding huge amounts of damage.)
     - Non-reuseable
     - Very specific

Acropolis : Use passively gained charges to temporarily boost speed or build drones
    - Certain method of gathering. Slow
    - Propulsion boosted charges are non re-useable
    - Relatively limited in effect
    - Capped
Note: For all points and purposes, an inferior version of yours

Custodes Use metal stripped from enemy to repair or build new things
    -  Dangerous method of gathering : (+ Relies on exactly one weapon system)
    -  More limited Useage
    -  No recycling

Laputa Does not have a power

Kolima Power serves as a limit, rather than as an aid.
   - Required for firing weaponry/ repairs

Fluxxstone :
   - Awarded for random events => Uncertain gain certainly lower than growth
   - No permanent effects
   - Unreliable
   - So far, weaker than what growth can do.

Dr. Coggiton Actually a weakness, rather than an advantage. Crashes without steam

Krakkus I have no idea what it's supposed to do

Zipworld
   - Unreliable Gain
   - Temporary effects

[Rolepgeek]

What? No, by abuse I was talking about the 10 Growth per turn thing. I plan on having at most a single Chlorophyll Bank, which would just raise my passive income to 2 per turn. Right now, Growth is just an easy way to represent my doing something very similar to what Dr Coggington did with that island, though it's more like eating it rather than becoming a part of it.

My defenses aren't at 20 Specialization, as you may have noticed. Because I'm not mon-maxing.(to be fair, I plan on spending Growth to boost my weapons and defenses up to the 60/40 point limit, but still not min-maxing them, especially if no one else makes it so I have to in order to remain viable)

Besides all of that, Akylon approved it, and I'll trust his judgement on this. I gave my ship a bunch of weapons for variety and so that choosing what I deployed actually made a difference. When I saw what other people had on their ships, I realized my stuff actually kinda sucked. But unique stuff is meant to be unique, and the drawback(oh, none, are there?) is the vulnerability I have while changing shit around.

Also, pretty sure 20 is the ingame limit for each stat. And by 132 Growth points, that would be my recyling almost literally everything on my ship. And if recycling only gave half back, I would be chopping my total stuff in half to do so.

Also, my point was that I couldn't drop everything and switch to a fully optimized combat set purpose built to fight whoever I'm fighting at the drop of a hat, like you seem to think I plan on doing(I don't. >.>)

[10ebbor10]

What? No, by abuse I was talking about the 10 Growth per turn thing. I plan on having at most a single Chlorophyll Bank, which would just raise my passive income to 2 per turn. Right now, Growth is just an easy way to represent my doing something very similar to what Dr Coggington did with that island, though it's more like eating it rather than becoming a part of it.

My defenses aren't at 20 Specialization, as you may have noticed. Because I'm not min-maxing.(to be fair, I plan on spending Growth to boost my weapons and defenses up to the 60/40 point limit, but still not min-maxing them, especially if no one else makes it so I have to in order to remain viable)

Having to feign incompetence is not a proper way of game balancing. On a side note, what you're describing is not min-maxing, but common sense. There's litterally no drawback for filling up your weaponry to the max point limit.

Definition of min maxing.

Besides all of that, Akylon approved it, and I'll trust his judgement on this.

In that case, you should not complain about my ship.

I gave my ship a bunch of weapons for variety and so that choosing what I deployed actually made a difference. When I saw what other people had on their ships, I realized my stuff actually kinda sucked. But unique stuff is meant to be unique, and the drawback(oh, none, are there?) is the vulnerability I have while changing shit around.

You have 200 mass points worth of weaponry. You can change half, and fire the other half. Basically, every weapon you have has a redundant counterpart. Most other people have done with less, or don't even reach the 100 point cap.

Also, pretty sure 20 is the ingame limit for each stat. And by 132 Growth points, that would be my recyling almost literally everything on my ship. And if recycling only gave half back, I would be chopping my total stuff in half to do so.

No one else can recycle. No one else even has the same amount of stuff you have. I put up a comparison in my previous post.

Also, my point was that I couldn't drop everything and switch to a fully optimized combat set purpose built to fight whoever I'm fighting at the drop of a hat, like you seem to think I plan on doing(I don't. >.>)

Nope, you plan, apparently, on exponentially boosting your own power. Besides, as I'm going to repeat again and again, feigning incompetence for purposes of game balance is a bad thing.

[Eric Blank]

I don't see Rolepgeek's power being a serious problem. After all, according to aklyon's rules as I understood them we can't bring online any new weapon or defensive systems after the start of a battle; your weapons can be destroyed, or you can choose to stop using them, but you don't get to activate any new ones. He therefore could not enter combat, recycle the weapons and defenses he didn't use into something specifically tailored to deal with one particular opponent, and then after that's done unleash the new equipment unless the fight ends, which so far has always ended in one or more participants eliminated entirely. What's the point of preparing to fight an enemy that you've already defeated? His strategy will basically have to be to predict ahead of time who he will be engaging, which works if he plays offensively, but not reliably if defensibly. His weapons according to the most recent post I could find are reasonable and effectively deal damage on hit per the normal rules.

The gravity cannon and the boarding squadrons are the only ones I can see that would need a special case: for the gravity cannon, Aklyon may need to roll to decide whether the projectile establishes an orbit around the target and then, when the target moves, roll again to decide if that projectile collides with it or is flung out of orbit and what that entails, such as it flying off into the ground or something. The boarding squadron seems a little too far fetched, like some of your weapons that do something similar;

Your first weapon, the ion cannons, seem to be intended to instantly take enemy craft out of action because they can no longer shoot back. Whether Aklyon demands functionally 1 mass/destructiveness, putting 20 points in all other stats and leaving mass and destructiveness at zero is ridiculous. Your decontamination droids apparently do the same thing, as well as dealing continual damage once they're on the enemy vessel, as well as your ion disruptors, which apparently start dealing damage-over-time after the first hit without needing to reroll, on top of disabling enemy equipment. The decontamination droids need a special case for how they get chunks of the enemy vessel and how those salvaged components will be dealt with once returned to your vessel. You have a defense system that immediately recharges your shields, when Aklyon specified that we don't get to start the game with a shield generator, only points in the shields themselves.

The boarding squadrons, decon droids, ion disruptors and cannons; Aklyon hasn't written rules for how boarding, arresting control from an opponent and damage-over-time (with associated saving throws) will be handled. It would be fine with me if the Ion cannons disabled weaponry by destroying them via a destructiveness stat that is "temporary" or "the weapon isn't actually destroyed, it's just unusable during the next turn and will be disabled again the turn after if next turn the ion cannons hit again and deal enough "damage" to disable it, also they can't be used on anything but weapons", but they don't. They just roll a D20+20 against to instantly disable for an unspecified length of time.

Until he comes up with rules for these special cases, I really don't like the idea of weapons that damage again next turn without having to roll to hit again when there is no reflex save or whathaveyou, or disable enemy ships' components when there are no rules for how boarding/hacking-to-effect-remote-control is to be handled.

[Rolepgeek]

Besides all of that, Akylon approved it, and I'll trust his judgement on this.

In that case, you should not complain about my ship.

He didn't approve it yet, otherwise I wouldn't.

Additionally, 'incompetence' is not the same as 'not putting 20 points in Stability for every weapon and minimizing destructiveness so I can have infini-weapons that actually do more damage total than a single weapon of equal destructiveness would'

And the point is to Grow. Not exponentially, just at all. He did say that would improve our stuff's base stats, it seemed to be part of the game, if the fact that he has rules for things like Shields lvl 20 are any indication.

Also, pretty sure I don't. My squadrons are like 100 points of weaponry, Massiveness wise, and the rest is like 30 points. Defenses are around the same, too.

Also, Coggington has far more stuff than I do. Krarkkus is well on it's way to the same, I believe. The Fluxxstone is terrifying anyway. The only reason you say that is because my stuff can be counted more easily since everything has a set value.

As for boardin weapons: I had just had the idea of it needing to break through enemy defenses, then dealing damage with subsequent rolls to represent the combat. Quite a few ships have stuff to counter boarders, or boarders of their own, that like fighters/drones it becomes it's own sub-class.

[10ebbor10]

I don't see Rolepgeek's power being a serious problem. After all, according to aklyon's rules as I understood them we can't bring online any new weapon or defensive systems after the start of a battle; your weapons can be destroyed, or you can choose to stop using them, but you don't get to activate any new ones.
He therefore could not enter combat, recycle the weapons and defenses he didn't use into something specifically tailored to deal with one particular opponent, and then after that's done unleash the new equipment unless the fight ends, which so far has always ended in one or more participants eliminated entirely. What's the point of preparing to fight an enemy that you've already defeated? His strategy will basically have to be to predict ahead of time who he will be engaging, which works if he plays offensively, but not reliably if defensibly. His weapons according to the most recent post I could find are reasonable and effectively deal damage on hit per the normal rules.

Pretty sure this is not the case. Don't see it anywhere in the rules. I attempted to repair defenses mid-battle with you, so there's precedent against it.

The only thing the rules say is that you can't use inactive weaponry in battle, which is kind of the point, as inactive weaponry is weaponry that is supposed to be inactive.

The gravity cannon and the boarding squadrons are the only ones I can see that would need a special case: for the gravity cannon, Aklyon may need to roll to decide whether the projectile establishes an orbit around the target and then, when the target moves, roll again to decide if that projectile collides with it or is flung out of orbit and what that entails, such as it flying off into the ground or something. The boarding squadron seems a little too far fetched, like some of your weapons that do something similar;

I have no qualms with the his weaponry, only with the variety of his special ability.

Your first weapon, the ion cannons, seem to be intended to instantly take enemy craft out of action because they can no longer shoot back. Whether Aklyon demands functionally 1 mass/destructiveness, putting 20 points in all other stats and leaving mass and destructiveness at zero is ridiculous.

First off, the effect is temporary, secondly it is nowhere near as strong as you describe it to be. At best, all guns together can reduce enemy gun stability by 48. (Assuming all hit, but no crit). This is only sufficient to surefire disable 1 or 2 guns. 4 if they have low stability ratings.  And that assumes they win the speed roll, and hit, both of which can be rather unlikely. 

If I had, on the other hand, invested that in conventional weaponry, I could probably blow 1 gun straight off the ship, and use them for damage if I wanted too.

Your decontamination droids apparently do the same thing, as well as dealing continual damage once they're on the enemy vessel

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=145304.msg5879326#msg5879326

I have the feeling you're making stuff, hence the link to the sheet. Continual damage is never mentioned, at all. Stunning is also not mentioned.

, as well as your ion disruptors, which apparently start dealing damage-over-time after the first hit without needing to reroll, on top of disabling enemy equipment.

They do need to reroll. If they didn't need to reroll, their bonus wouldn't be boosted stability, would it?

The decontamination droids need a special case for how they get chunks of the enemy vessel and how those salvaged components will be dealt with once returned to your vessel.

No they don't. These materials are utilized to recharge the vessel's special ability. Sorry if there has been unclarity in that regard.

You have a defense system that immediately recharges your shields, when Aklyon specified that we don't get to start the game with a shield generator, only points in the shields themselves.

It doesn't immediately recharge shields. But yeah, I forgot about the no recharge thingy. Going to wait for him to change that, or if not, remove the shields for being completely useless. (Because really, if you can have non-repairable shields that take X points of damage before mitigation, or structure that takes 3X points of damage, after mitigation. Which are you gonna choose?)

The boarding squadrons, decon droids, ion disruptors and cannons; Aklyon hasn't written rules for how boarding, arresting control from an opponent and damage-over-time (with associated saving throws) will be handled.

I don't have anything that does damage over time, and boarding and arresting control already has suitable rules for them. They haven't been revealed, but for the previous few turns I have been murdering the population of my enemies, which you should have noticed.

It would be fine with me if the Ion cannons disabled weaponry by destroying them via a destructiveness stat that is "temporary" or "the weapon isn't actually destroyed, it's just unusable during the next turn and will be disabled again the turn after if next turn the ion cannons hit again and deal enough "damage" to disable it, also they can't be used on anything but weapons", but they don't. They just roll a D20+20 against to instantly disable for an unspecified length of time.

Each gun lowers the targets gun stability by a d2 for 1 turn. This is noted in the sheet.

Until he comes up with rules for these special cases, I really don't like the idea of weapons that damage again next turn without having to roll to hit again when there is no reflex save or whathaveyou, or disable enemy ships' components when there are no rules for how boarding/hacking-to-effect-remote-control is to be handled.

Basically, what happened here is that you saw Rolepgeek complaining about my ship being overpowered, and then made up stuff that wasn't there, AT ALL, so that it would be overpowered. Watch out when you assume things, as it can make you look like a complete fool.

Additionally, 'incompetence' is not the same as 'not putting 20 points in Stability for every weapon and minimizing destructiveness so I can have infini-weapons that actually do more damage total than a single weapon of equal destructiveness would'

Have you actually read my sheet. Because your main gripe with the sheet, ie, the infini weapons with more damage each than a single weapon would do, don't exist. First of all, they do zero damage, being intended purely to deactivate enemy weapons temporarily. If I gave them 1 massiveness and 1 damage, they would actually be far stronger.

And when faced with a choice between a weapon with X stats, and a weapon with X+10 stats, with no drawbacks for that weapon whatsoever, it is feigned incompetence (/real overconfidence) to take the lower number.

And the point is to Grow. Not exponentially, just at all. He did say that would improve our stuff's base stats, it seemed to be part of the game, if the fact that he has rules for things like Shields lvl 20 are any indication.

And other players have been improving their base stats slowly through their in game actions. None of them as fast, and with as much choice as you.

Also, pretty sure I don't. My squadrons are like 100 points of weaponry, Massiveness wise, and the rest is like 30 points. Defenses are around the same, too.

8*8+14*3+9*2+3*6+20*2+3*4 = 194 (That's just weaponry. Defenses is closer to the 60 points limit.)

Also, Coggington has far more stuff than I do. Krarkkus is well on it's way to the same, I believe. The Fluxxstone is terrifying anyway. The only reason you say that is because my stuff can be counted more easily since everything has a set value.

Uhm, no, not really. Dr. Cogginton's structure was tripled, as far as I found, so it's now 9, rather than 3. Hardly spectacular. In addition, without steam he'll run into the ground. Besides, his sheet is still done using the old style formula, so his weaponry and defenses are worthless.

Krakkus has gained 5 integrity, but that's it.

Fluxxstone is also not very dangerous. The Flux is a wild card, but half of their defenses are still gone after 1 wayward strike of mine.

Heaven's acropolis is dangerous, but only because he actually updated his weaponry to use the new rules; (Also, stupidly lucky)

As for boardin weapons: I had just had the idea of it needing to break through enemy defenses, then dealing damage with subsequent rolls to represent the combat. Quite a few ships have stuff to counter boarders, or boarders of their own, that like fighters/drones it becomes it's own sub-class.

Or you know, simply run it as attacks versus population.

[Aklyon]

Oh dear...This is a lot of post. But since it seems in the most recent one everyone is being compared, I'll copy my Altered Stats notes to here for now:

Fluxxstone - 2 Orbiting Fluxx left

Krarkkus - +8 integrity, improved sight range

Devastator Airship - Essentially dead.

Heaven's Acropolis - Temp -2 Pop (Evac cars), Drone squad A ruined, B recalled, D through F deployed (D is damaged), Repair squadron deployed, -1 pop from poison gas.

Dr. Coggington - General tripling bonus from size increase.

Kolima - Landed on Dr. Coggington.

Laputa - relegated to scenery unless/until ansontan appears.

[Eric Blank]

My apologies for my mistakes, I misread the sheet. There is nothing wrong with RPgeek's special ability, however.
You do need to clarify exactly how your systems are supposed to work if they don't follow the normal procedures and the rules you are assuming they function on. I also noticed again the infinite bulkhead bullshit. That's bullshit, it needs a specific number or to default to one.

Aklyon, while you're here, explain exactly how boarding and taking control works currently, if such rules do in fact exist.

[Aklyon]

Aklyon, while you're here, explain exactly how boarding and taking control works currently, if such rules do in fact exist.

Boarding, I have a badly described thing written about (essentially an extension of the combat rolls that replaces damage with much lower numbers for casualties and probably wouldn't work if I used it as-is), but taking control I don't have anything for. While I do tend to just put things together as they come up (as seen in how much of a fun mess WIZARD is, or Scale 2 in Crystalline), I'd prefer to use something that makes more sense here, since its a multiplayer game.

I also noticed again the infinite bulkhead bullshit. That's bullshit, it needs a specific number or to default to one.

The generous way to do it would be to cut it off at the point cap and deactivate the other defenses, but thats probably not the answer I'll go with. I'd looked over the first version of it previously but stopped since it had no defenses yet.

[Rolepgeek]

Where are you getting 8x8 from? I have 5 Assault squadrons, not eight.

And my point wasn't that you were using infini-weapons(though he poison gas launchers were essentilly that, in your last sheet), my point was that me not taking the exact same route you are by abusing the mechanics of the system is not the same as being incompetent. That is what I am talking about when I say min-max, regardless of what the technical definition is. Abusing the loopholes in the rules.

I have increased my base stats exactly one point in Structure, and actually reduced my Propulsion by three points, since the game started. So that's bullshit. Everything else has been going into utility stuff and Fluff(notice I spent a point on Landing Gear. Are you going to call me incompetent for doing something like that?).

Also, repairing mid-battle =/= activating new weapons/defenses. At all.

And no, I never argued that it was overpowered. I argued that it was munchkinized and skullduggeried. Also, 12 is not a low stability rating for anyone except you. You claim 'oh their stuff is useless and below-par' when you're just talking about people who put Fluff ahead of Crunch, and didn't give themselves a shitton of weapons to abuse the way Massiveness is tied only to Destructiveness.

As for boarding attacks attacking population; that only really works if they have population/population matters. The Fluxx, for example, or Krarkkus.

And Dr. Coggington seems to have tripled all his stats, if I read that right, not just structure. Besides which, the island he was on was floating on it's own before he became it, and capable of supporting his craft. Why wouldn't it be able to now?

And please, read the way I word things. I do it on purpose, for specific reasons, to try and convey my meaning. Krarkkus is on it's way to the same. Not 'is already there'. I don't actually have all that much stuff right now, in terms of what I can use. My only weapon that uses all 60 points are the Gravity Arc Cannons(and they have crappy-ass speed and crappy-ass Stability, both on purpose) and only my boarding squadrons have the most Destructiveness for their given massiveness. So claiming that I'm overpowered because I want to have the capability to be viable with other ships without abusing the mechanics of the game is bullshit.

Also, I'm so totally calling that the signal shit from under the island I'm in the process of eating is part of The Crystalline, or at least based off of it.

Maybe if I die, that should be my next ship...the Tertiary Crystal...hmmmm...

Also, Ebbor, you're being rather rude. Calling Eric a 'complete fool'?

[RAM]

Kolima - Landed on Dr. Coggington.

0_0
*read* *read* *read*
Oh, wow, sorry, I somehow managed to completely miss the Kolima incident! Thinking cap activate!