Maneuverability Codes

[atgxtg]

Naaman,

Read the original post. The point here is that vehicle performance is generally less about the capabilities of the vehicle and more about the capabilities of the person operating it.

The thing is that according to the RAW +1D is +1D and it makes no difference where it comes from. By the RAW if you put an untrained pilot (MEC 2D) in an A-Wing (Maneuverability 4D) he flies it as well as a trained (Piloting 4D) Y-Wing (Maneuverability 2D).

My point that more maneuverable vehicles tend to crack up more spectacular is also still valid. Partly because a pilot won't attempt the same sort of maneuvers in a less responsive vehicle, and partly because the less responsive vehicle cannot do certain things.

For instance, you are simply not going to be making sharp turns in a VW Beetle at 100mph. Now in game terms since speed and move rate are only partially related (for instance the speed you would reach going all-out in a VW Beetle is probably only Cautious movement for a Ferrari 599GBT) the faster and more maneuverable Ferrari is going to be capable of failures that the Beetle is not. Your'e not going to roll a Beelte at "High Speed" (probably around 45kph) but you might roll the Ferrari at "high Speed" (probably around 115kph).


Yet another example is landing an airplane. A fast, highly responsive jet, is tricker to land than say a single engine prop plane - because the jet is both more resposive and has a higher stall speed.

[Raven Redstar]

I'm enjoying reading about the arguments y'all are having about this.

I'm still not 100% sure how I want to go about everything, but I think you guys have given me some things to think about. I kind of like the idea of static maneuverability codes, I'll just have to do some looking up and jotting down to figure out how I want to work things based on scale and size of a ship (since the two aren't mutually exclusive).

I'm thinking that whatever I do, I'm going to set a hard cap at +15 maneuverability, so even if someone modifies up their maneuvering jets, they won't be able to pass the cap. Also, with what's been suggested, I may institute a maneuverability modifier based on the speed tier. +3 for cautious, 0 for cruising, -6 for high speed, and -12 for all out. Which would then allow for piloting rolls to be made at all out speed, as well as reactive rolls.

What I really want to do, is get more in line with character skill, and less in line with equipment that does the job for you. I think there should be modifiers associated, but not to the point that I've seen.

If I do decide to fully implement, I'll make a series of quick start tables so that someone should be able to glance at a couple pieces of information with an established vehicle and arrive at the new modifier within a few seconds.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[jmanski]

I'm late coming into this conversation, but I think boats are the better way to think of maneuverability- a small boat would be a starfighter while an aircraft carrier would be a capital ship.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Raven Redstar]

Yes jmanski, especially when you consider space faring vessels.

Something like a freighter isn't going to have the same maneuvering potential as a zodiac or a speed boat.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[atgxtg]

Boats are an iffy example. The thing with boats is that much of their maneuverability depends on hull shape and how deep they sit in the water.

[garhkal]

[Raven Redstar]

Yes, I'm aware of the increasing difficulty, I'm thinking about compounding it with decreasing maneuverability effectiveness.

I'm not sure if I'll keep it that way, but the thought has occurred to me.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[tetsuoh]

[atgxtg]