Design ignores field testing

[WeaverofBrokenThreads]

I have reason to believe, but no way to prove, that when a new model is generated, that it does not take into account the increase in base design value from field testing, but applies it afterwards. This is from empirical data, but there is a clue in the design window where the base design value is modified after the values are generated.

The result is that every model seems to generate values for engine, weapon and armour design based on the original base design value, or is modified by it in such a way.

EDIT: I also think that it is possible that it uses the newly generated structural design value before overruling it with the previous one.

[zgrssd]

To my knowledge, Structural Design is the one fixed part of a design line. It will never improove of worsen. Indeed it will not even be rolled for a new design.

But otherwise? It is quite possible.

[WeaverofBrokenThreads]

[...] that it uses the newly generated structural design value before overruling it with the previous one.

[Culthrasa]

We had a discusson on the main tread, linked here. I agree with the OP it seems like it is not working as intended..

[YppY]

Indeed I think you are right. I did some testing with a design with 169 base design. It appears that what matters are the structural and base design role made at the top of the design log. Even though they should have no effect.

[Vic]

Posted this in the linked thread:

WeapDesign,ArmourDesign and EngineDesign are (BaseDesign/2)+4d20 and then modified for Structural Design. The Fire Power is modified for WD, The Engine power for ED and the Armour Strength fro AD.

If you make a new version of a Model, say MkII. It is possible that although BaseDesign has gone up due to Field Testing the random factor results in a roll for WD,AD or ED that is lower than that of MkI, in that case the MkI value is used because it is higher.

....

to add to that:

So a really good roll with an initial Model might make it hard to surpass ED,WD,AD in higher versions.


best wishes,
Vic

[YppY]

Take a look at this design then. GV VIII: Base design 169. Structural design 93.
Armor design = &#8970;169/2&#8971; + 4d20 => 87 < Armor design < 165
We do not know how Structural design modifies this.
In this image I got Armor design = 55. Is this possible with the Structural design modifier?

[WeaverofBrokenThreads]

I can confirm it doesn't work, Vic. I have a model with 166 base design, but I still rolled 69 for weapon design. The lowest possible value should be 87. Structural design is 114.

[Culthrasa]

ORIGINAL: WeaverofBrokenThreads

I can confirm it doesn't work, Vic. I have a model with 166 base design, but I still rolled 69 for weapon design. The lowest possible value should be 87. Structural design is 114.

likewise...
Just to give an example.. Both my mark II and mark III have 116 base design, so even if the previous base design number was used it would still be 116 for the mark III. The mark III rolled a 58 for both engine and armor which should not be possible with the roll you described.

the formula:
WeapDesign,ArmourDesign and EngineDesign are (BaseDesign/2)+4d20 and then modified for Structural Design. The Fire Power is modified for WD, The Engine power for ED and the Armour Strength fro AD.

the roll:
116/2 is 56 plus at least 4 from 4d20 should be at least 60. The str.design is 108 so i'm assuming that will be a bonus on the roll, not a penalty. Not to mention the odds that 2 rolls would have been made with the lowest score possible which is 4^10(-11)






On a related note.. does the director's skill also apply somehow? What is its effect?

And thz for taking the time to explain. Understanding the mechanics helps a lot and leads to better decision making and thereby a more fun game!

[Vic]

Right right... Thanks for not taking no for an answer. We might indeed be on to something here.

[Vic]

I think a non correct Base Design stat has been used in the calcs. Will be fixed in v1.03-beta1.

[YppY]

Are you sure the design is fixed. Here is another 55 Armor design with the same Base design 169 GI.
I'm still pretty sure the issue is that both the base and structural design at the top if the design log is used.