06-17-2013, 09:35 PM | #1 |
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oregon
|
Concerning handling class...
While I working on my newest project, I sat and thought about something my math teacher told me in college. He said for every complicated table to find information is an equation that does the same thing.
Handling is done completely with tables, making predicting outcomes a bit of a gamble when maneuvering or weathering hazards on the road. I have theorized that the variables petaining to the chance of a vehcile losing control and thus rolling on that dreaded crash table is thus: 1. Handling class. This is an arbitrary number directly associated with the sacrifice of weight and money in the construction of a car in the form of suspension and wheel types. Other small contributers like spoilers and air dams are a footnote. Since this number rarely changes during the duration of play, I would consider it a translational and thus static variable. Much like the 'c' in the equation 'aX˛+bX+c'. Anyone out there who knows math you know what I mean by this. 2. Speed. The speed of a vehicle makes changing direction or the introduction of elements that interrupt the tires contact with the road more and more difficult. This could be considered the X axis on the Cartesian. 3. Difficulty ratings on handling class. The D1 to D7 handling modifications that create either a hazard crash table roll or a maneuver crash table roll. You could consider this to be the Y axis on the Cartesian. It would be nice to see what my percent chance to crash is at any beginning of my next turn. Plug in speed and then plug in Difficulty rating and there should be spit out a number that corresponds to a percentage chance to crash on the next phase (or turn). I have never really liked the 2d6 unless it was used in RPG situations where accuracy was not that much of an issue. Imagine having a 1% significant accuracy in a game where the turns are measured in 1/5th of a second... (busy imagining ... hold on a second). Two ten sided dice (d100%) are cheaper than dirt and are as accessible as six sided dice to those are marginally interested in gaming now. Example of a more resolute crash chance table: So during a game you can see that you are taking hazards from damage and you want to decrease your chance to crash as low as possible as your HC is at -5. So you lower your speed from 55 mph to 45 mph. Let's say that this decreases your chance to crash by 3%. On the old crash table, the chance to crash is 1,2,3 on d6 no matter if you are going 45 or 55.
__________________
HCobb's OGRE Maker Yet another OGRE designer FJCestero OGRE Maker CP Alpha's new home My email Last edited by Toltrin; 06-17-2013 at 10:00 PM. |
06-18-2013, 07:52 AM | #2 | |
Join Date: Mar 2013
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
My engineering experience informes me that there are design cases that have been demonstrated with numerical methods that defy analytic solutions, and that the world isn't Newtonianly deterministic, though in most cases it's a very good approximation. False precision is a hazard of games design, and it's easy to add complexity to a system, but it often doesn't add any great value. Further, at the level we're dealing with mechanics are continuous while dice are discrete and will always be discrete. Is screwing around with multiple d10 and non-linear equations worth not including a table? For many people, no it's not. It's probably already in the rules, but I'd make excessive speed an exacerbating modifier on the crash table. Of course this wouldn't encourage cinematic high velocity play. |
|
06-18-2013, 10:30 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CA
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
What are you even suggesting? That we do a binomial formula every time we want to do a maneuver?
To get rid of the tables all you need is a HC system that matches the control table check. In other words, HC -1 means you make a control roll and have a 1 in 6 chance of crashing (you would still need a crash table). HC of -2 means 2 in 6 chance of crashing. HC or 0 or better means no chance of crashing at any speed. I've already posted my ideas for this and can again if anyone is interested, but the basic idea is to flatten the control table and make maneuvers harder the faster you go. Hazards would not be dependent on speed so you could still 'crash' at 0 mph if you got hit with enough heavy weapons (you could vault into the air after being hit by a tank gun lol). |
06-18-2013, 12:49 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Snohomish, WA
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
I'd move away from negative numbers and make the bottom of the scale be 0. Make the roll 1d6 + current HC, with the value required to maintain control being 1+ speed/10 (rounded up). With this you're safe at speeds up to 10x your current HC. Pretty simple and no negative numbers with an arbitrary floor. Keep in mind that matching the control rolls up widens out the range by about 50% - difficulties need to be adjusted accordingly to get roughly the same result. I've also posted up my thoughts on this. I'll probably post up a more comprehensive proposal sometime soon that ties in some other fixes. |
|
06-18-2013, 03:55 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Central Oklahoma
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
I'd like to see both the proposals alluded to, Juris and smiley. And this *is* a thread labelled handling class, after all (though I wish it had a 6e tag on it so the designers can find it later).
__________________
Check out the Car Wars community on Google+! And if you're in flyover country, consider linking into Tornado Alley Game Guild! |
06-18-2013, 04:31 PM | #6 | |
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CA
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
So as above the Control Table and the HC table will be the same: Have ONE control table HC -6: Go to crash table HC -5: Roll d6 crash on 1-5 HC -4: "" crash on 1-4 HC -3: "" crash on 1-3 HC -2: "" crash on 1-2 HC -1: "" crash on 1 HC 0 or better - you are fine at any speed For maneuvers, use the current system as a base (so a 45 degree turn is a D3 maneuver etc). However, maneuvers get harder the faster you go according to the following: Don't track HC below 25 (no modifier) 30-45 Normal Difficulty (no modifier) 50-65 Difficulty +1 70-85 Difficulty +2 90-105 Difficulty +3 … Every Increment of 20 increase Difficulty by another +1 Edit: I'm not 100% on these increments they would need to be playtested; this is only to give you a general idea Note that the same modifier should be used on the crash table. Example: if you crash at 60 you will add +1 to the crash table result. If you crash at 90 mph you will add +3. The crash tables may need to be flattened. Hazards are not affected by speed - taking 15 points of damage is still a D3 hazard - so you can 'crash' at 0mph if you are pegged by 3 ATGs and take 45 points of damage (you flip into the air, skid sideways from the impact, etc). Strengths of the system: Only math is simple addition and subtraction. Keeps the rule of thumb that 'negative HC is bad'. Weakness: Variable difficulty of the same maneuver depending on speed. This would need to be printed on the turning key. Ex: A car with a HC of 5 (heavy suspension, radial tires and a spoiler/airdam) is going 100 mph. All maneuvers are base difficulty +3 – but the spoiler/airdam reduces this to +2. The driver does a base D3 maneuver (45 degree turn) – which is actually a D5 at 100 mph. HC drops to 0 so the car is still fine. If the same vehicle was then hit by a machine gun for a point of damage that would be a D1 hazard. HC would go to -1 requiring a control roll or 2 or better on a d6 to avoid a crash. If the vehicle crashes the modifier to the crash result is the same: +2. This rule avoids absurd results like 2.5e. In 2.5e you could have a Van with a HC of 0 and a spoiler and airdam going around at track at 200 mph with no danger of crashing (assuming only D1 maneuvers). I also think speed modifiers for targeting should use the same number. Instead of having to do vector calculations for speed modifiers just use the same modifier - so a target going 100 mph would be -3 to hit, ignore facing. Reward reckless driving ;) Last edited by juris; 06-18-2013 at 06:03 PM. |
|
06-18-2013, 06:26 PM | #7 | |
Join Date: Dec 2007
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
HC (susp. plus accessories) + vehicle-ops skill + reflex bonus - Ds of maneuvers and hazards taken that phase (incl. road hazard mods) - 1 per 20 mph of speed (ignoring fractions) - roll of 2d6 If the total is 0 or more, the car is fine; anything less, and it crashes -- and instead of having to roll again, one takes the final result, and compares it to the Crash Table, thus saving a step on the way. And since most of the above are fixed values, the player can figure out where his "safe zone" is, and play accordingly.
__________________
"Dale *who*?" 79er The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course: 1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End. |
|
06-18-2013, 06:29 PM | #8 | |
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oregon
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
The reason why I wanted an equation is so I could create an app for %chance to crash with only two variables entered.
__________________
HCobb's OGRE Maker Yet another OGRE designer FJCestero OGRE Maker CP Alpha's new home My email |
|
06-18-2013, 06:33 PM | #9 | ||
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Oregon
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
Quote:
Quote:
HAHA!
__________________
HCobb's OGRE Maker Yet another OGRE designer FJCestero OGRE Maker CP Alpha's new home My email |
||
06-19-2013, 11:34 AM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Iowa
|
Re: Concerning handling class...
How does driver skill affect this? +1 to Handling Status per how much you made the skill roll by? or would it apply to the crash roll? or both?
Interesting ideas.
__________________
--Jim Tetrick All Opinions expressed above are mine and mine alone ...unless my plot to control the Orbital Mind Control Lasers succeeds. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|