| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
 Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 4:55 pm Post subject: Modification cost for vehicles, weapons, and armor. |
 |
|
Question: Are the costs indicated in the modification rules cumulative or progressive?
So the rules for modifications are found at p. 60 of the 2d Ed. R&E. The tables for modifications give the effect, difficulty, and cost of modifications. The values in the effect column (let's use space speed increase, for example) are what I will call "progressive" - the new entry displays the entire bonus rather than one added to previous bonuses (i.e. increasing space speed from +1 to +2 results in a speed of +2, not +3). In contrast, the difficulties given under the difficulty column are "cumulative" - each new entry is added to the previous (i.e. increasing space speed from +1 to +2 requires a Difficult roll even though a Moderate roll was already required for the first modification).
So . . . does a character pay the progressive amount in the cost column with each new modification (i.e. increasing space speed from +1 to +2 results in a cost of 15% - 10% already paid = 5%), or does he pay the cumulative amount (i.e. increasing space speed from +1 to +2 results in a cost of 15%)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14139
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Neither. First mod costs you the listed amt (usually 5%). Next mod is 10%, and so on. Just cause you paid 20% at very difficult, does not mean your heroic mod (25%) is only needing 5% more. This is why souping up ships etc DOES get costly as heck over time. 5%+10%+15%+20%+25% equals 75% of the ship, armor or weapon's cost.
Almost as much in some cases as buying an entire new suit/ship used..
My only question with it is are the mods based on the NEW price of the armor/ship/weapon, or the USED price (if you bought it new).>?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2014 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Neither. First mod costs you the listed amt (usually 5%). Next mod is 10%, and so on. Just cause you paid 20% at very difficult, does not mean your heroic mod (25%) is only needing 5% more. This is why souping up ships etc DOES get costly as heck over time. 5%+10%+15%+20%+25% equals 75% of the ship, armor or weapon's cost.
Almost as much in some cases as buying an entire new suit/ship used.. |
But this IS the cumulative amount I mentioned, so I take this to mean you're endorsing that interpretation. In my example the cost of increasing the space speed from +1 to +2 is 15% (whereas the total cost to increase from +0 to +2 would be 10% + 15% = 25%, as you also indicate).
I'm looking for the "why?" What makes that interpretation more valid than the progressive valuation I mention? If the "Space Increase" column reads "+1, +2, +3, +4," and the "Cost" column reads "10%, 15%, 20%, 25%," why is the total cost 10% + 15% + 20% + 25% = 70%, but the total space increase is only +4 (instead of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = +10)?
| garhkal wrote: | | My only question with it is are the mods based on the NEW price of the armor/ship/weapon, or the USED price (if you bought it new).>? |
It depends on the condition of the parts you use to upgrade, I would think. If you're using used parts for the mod, you would use the used value of the engine for the calculation even if the actual engine being modded is new. I would liberally apply a "weakest link" mentality, though, as the GM. Modding a new engine with used parts should decrease its reliability, whereas installing new parts in a used engine might increase its reliability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14139
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | Neither. First mod costs you the listed amt (usually 5%). Next mod is 10%, and so on. Just cause you paid 20% at very difficult, does not mean your heroic mod (25%) is only needing 5% more. This is why souping up ships etc DOES get costly as heck over time. 5%+10%+15%+20%+25% equals 75% of the ship, armor or weapon's cost.
Almost as much in some cases as buying an entire new suit/ship used.. |
But this IS the cumulative amount I mentioned, so I take this to mean you're endorsing that interpretation. In my example the cost of increasing the space speed from +1 to +2 is 15% (whereas the total cost to increase from +0 to +2 would be 10% + 15% = 25%, as you also indicate).
I'm looking for the "why?" What makes that interpretation more valid than the progressive valuation I mention? If the "Space Increase" column reads "+1, +2, +3, +4," and the "Cost" column reads "10%, 15%, 20%, 25%," why is the total cost 10% + 15% + 20% + 25% = 70%, but the total space increase is only +4 (instead of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = +10)? |
IMO its the combined total for cost, as you are going through each and every step, spending that percentage amt for that level. So by the time you are done, the total cost is 75% of the price of the vehicle/weapon etc.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought the prices only applied to the base cost, before upgrading.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14139
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps we are not understanding where both of us are coming from.
Take ship ABC. Base cost (new) is 40,000 credits. its base hull is 3d.
Making an improvement to the hull costs you 10% of cost to take it up one pip (4k in this example). You now have a 3d+1 hull (and maneuvering dropped 1 pip).
To then go to 3d+2, costs 15% or 6k (total expended is 10k). To go to 4d (1d above) is 20% cost, or 8k (18 total spent). To then go the max of 1d+1 above base, would cost 25% or 10k (28k spent)..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Perhaps we are not understanding where both of us are coming from.
Take ship ABC. Base cost (new) is 40,000 credits. its base hull is 3d.
Making an improvement to the hull costs you 10% of cost to take it up one pip (4k in this example). You now have a 3d+1 hull (and maneuvering dropped 1 pip).
To then go to 3d+2, costs 15% or 6k (total expended is 10k). To go to 4d (1d above) is 20% cost, or 8k (18 total spent). To then go the max of 1d+1 above base, would cost 25% or 10k (28k spent).. |
Like I said. Only apply the percentages to the base cost of the ship/armor/weapon.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | IMO its the combined total for cost, as you are going through each and every step, spending that percentage amt for that level. So by the time you are done, the total cost is 75% of the price of the vehicle/weapon etc. |
I agree with you that this is the way I think the rule should work. But I was just curious if anybody saw a RAW reason for concluding that you total up all of the entries in the cost column, when you do not total up all of the entries in the increase columns?
But seeing as I've created a thread thoroughly uninteresting to the vast majority of the community, I will just be happy knowing that at least two others think that cumulative cost should be applied, even if there is no clear RAW reason for doing so.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2269
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2014 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't have anything to add to the conversation, nuclearwookiee, but it looks like this is pretty clearly another example of poor editing on WEG's part. It would have been a lot clearer if both columns progressed the same way.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
