Target Numbers

Summary:

Finding example target numbers for various tasks.

Target Numbers

TauCeti 17 Jun 2008 23:19

One critique that I actually agree with is that there aren't enough examples of difficulties for actions. Specifically, for non-contested actions (those against the environment). I recommend that either in the expansion or in SA2, a list of example difficulties is included.

I'm starting this thread in the hopes of reaching some sort of consensus as to how difficult various tasks should be, at least in cannon.

To help, I've done some math.

The following table lists the average roll given a single die and capability, where the player is willing to spend a specific amount of reserve. This table assumes that the player is attempting to achieve the highest average result (so they're re-rolling on a 4 or less and adding 1 on a 5+). It does not take into account modifiers like CVs, using the wrong profession, or having help. It also doesn't take into account the other die being rolled, although that is more relevant when the player isn't spending reserve (or is spending very little).

	Reserve Spent
Stat	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	5.5	7.3
2	11.0	14.6	17.0
3	16.5	21.9	25.5	28.6
4	22.0	29.2	34.0	38.2	42.3
5	27.5	36.5	42.5	47.7	52.8	57.9
6	33.0	43.8	50.9	57.3	63.4	69.4	75.4
7	38.5	51.1	59.4	66.8	74.0	81.0	88.0	95.0
8	44.0	58.4	67.9	76.4	84.5	92.6	100.6	108.6	116.6
9	49.5	65.7	76.4	85.9	95.1	104.1	113.1	122.1	131.1	140.1
10	55.0	73.0	84.9	95.5	105.6	115.7	125.7	135.7	145.7	155.7	165.7

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 17 Jun 2008 23:54

This chart shows what happens when the player knows the target number and wants to achieve it, at any cost. The % values is the chances that the player will be able to reach that target number if they spend as much reserve as possible. The bold numbers are the average reserve spent on getting that result (where the character is guaranteed to succeed if the player spends the reserve correctly). In all cases, I assume that the player is being highly conservative. In other words, if they roll a 1 and need a 2 to succeed, they'll spend 1 reserve instead of re-rolling. The "average reserve spent" numbers are intended to give an idea as to how many times the character can achieve these results in a day.

	Stat
Target	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
5	88%	0.3	0.1	0.1	0	0	0	0	0	0
10	28%	98%	0.6	0.23	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0
15	0%	79%	0.9	0.42	0.23	0.23	0.42	0.1	0.1	0.1
20		50%	96%	1	0.42	0.42	0.42	0.23	0.23	0.1
25		0%	83%	99%	1	0.42	1	0.42	0.23	0.23
30			70%	97%	1.5	1	1.5	0.42	0.42	0.23
35			28%	93%	2	1.5	1.5	1	0.42	0.42
40			0%	85%	99%	2.1	2.1	1	1	0.42
45				50%	98%	2.7	2.8	1.5	1	1
50				28%	94%	3.3	3.6	2.1	1.5	1
55				0%	88%	98%	3.6	2.1	2.1	1.5
60					70%	98%	99%	3.6	2.1	1.5
65					50%	94%	97%	3.6	2.8	2.1
70					28%	85%	97%	99%	2.8	2.1
75					0%	70%	93%	99%	3.6	2.8
80						50%	87%	97%	3.6	2.8
85						28%	78%	93%	4.5	3.6
90						0%	78%	93%	4.5	3.6
95							66%	87%	99%	4.5
100							66%	78%	97%	4.5
105							50%	78%	97%	5.5
110							28%	66%	93%	5.5
115							0%	66%	93%	99%
120								50%	87%	99%
125								28%	87%	97%
130								28%	78%	97%
135								10%	78%	93%
140								0%	66%	93%
145									50%	87%
150									50%	87%
155									28%	78%
160									28%	78%
165									10%	66%
170									10%	66%
175									0%	50%
180										50%
185										28%
190										28%
195										10%
200										10%

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 08 Jul 2008 11:37

I’ve worked out a few target numbers.

Jumping up 8 feet or forward 25 feet: 50
Reasoning: These are the Olympic maxima. I’m assuming Bio 3 and Athlete 4, max reserve spent, and still only a slim chance of success.

Running a marathon: 20
Reasoning: I’m assuming either Bio 3 and Athlete 1; or Bio 2, Athlete 2, and lots of reserve spent. Either way gives you a decent chance of success (more experience would guarantee it). Winning the marathon would be a contested roll.

Sending an unmanned spacecraft from Earth to Mars at String 3: 50 / 35
The second number represents the difficulty using a full team of professionals (ignoring “working together” bonus).
Reasoning: Assumes Cog 3 and Profession 4 (various) with max reserve spent. First number assumes a +3 from people working with you. Historically, humanity has about a 60% success rate.

Last edited on 09 Jul 2008 03:07 by TauCeti Show more

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 08 Jul 2008 15:42

I worked out a few difficulties for shooting things. In each case, I'm assuming the target isn't moving relative to the shooter. If it is, the shot is much more difficult. Note that all shots against targets in space (or from space) are at orbital speeds. As such, they are much more difficult than the listed shots (and sometimes require superhuman timing).

Note that not all weapons have enough range to reach these distances, and some don't do enough damage to destroy the target. Also note that non-near-c weapons (ballistic weapons) are effected by gravity and wind shear, making long distance shots much harder. (While a light speed weapon is effected by gravity, it is effected exactly as much as the visual image you are seeing of the target, so if you line up the target in the cross hairs (and it doesn't move) you will hit it).

Guided weapons shouldn't use this system at all.

I worked these out by assuming that an average soldier (Nano 2, Soldier 2) can shoot a near-c weapon with ~50% accuracy at a non-moving human sized target at a range of 900 feet without spending reserve. Everything else is me applying the inverse square law and sliding up the dice scale (increasing Nano and Soldier).

Shooting a can:

10 inches	5
4 feet	10	point blank
10 feet	15
30 feet	25
75 feet	35
200 feet	55
300 feet	70
600 feet	90
1500 feet	140
4000 feet	210
1 mile	260

Shooting a person:

70 feet	5
300 feet	10
900 feet	15
2500 feet	25
1 mile	35
3 miles	55	horizon
5 miles	70
8 miles	90
22 miles	140
60 miles	210
100 miles	260	low orbit

Shooting the broad side of a barn (building, starship):

200 feet	5
1500 feet	10
1 mile	15
3 miles	25	horizon
8 miles	35
22 miles	55
36 miles	70
60 miles	90
260 miles	140	low orbit
430 miles	210
700 miles	260

Last edited on 08 Jul 2008 17:13 by TauCeti Show more

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 09 Jul 2008 03:02

Breaking Security (hacking, spying, and stealing):
I’m treating this as a contest against whatever the creator of the security system rolled. As such, all of these numbers are extremely approximate.

“Low Security” represents simple security measures easily acquirable in the society. This is produced by a character with average capabilities (average of low and high) and ~25% of its life expectancy in the security profession. I assume all reserve spent, a +1 due to a core value, and an average roll.

“High Security” represents the kind of security the military and major corporations would use. It is generated by a character with the highest capabilities and 50% of their life expectancy in the security profession. Again, all reserve is spent, a +1 due to a core value, and an average roll.

“Maximum Security” represents the best defenses the civilization can muster. This would be used on necessary life support, planetary defense, Stored servers, and Replicant data repositories. As with “High Security”, except that the character gets the maximum possible roll. Remember: if something is important enough, a lower-tech civilization can outsource its security.

In the case of the Roamers and Union, I assume a +2 core value bonus at all times.

For most civilizations the profession swamps the capabilities. The exceptions are the mechanicans (who’s abysmal Cog and Bio, coupled with high everything-else means that they default to their capabilities), the Stardwellers (incredible Nano) and the Stored (incredible Cog).

Split target numbers are listed as hacking / nano

Civilization	Mid	High	Maximum
Stored	175	200 / 175	220
Stardwellers	125	175 / 200	220
Union	110	185	220
Roamers	90	185	220
Replicants	110	175	220
Masquerade	100	175	220
Tao	90	175	220
Logicians	90	175	220
Spacers	80	175	220
Independents	60	150	220
Disciples	60	135	205
Cargo Cults	60	135	205
Mechanica	55 / 80	110 / 125	175
Old-Worlders	45	80	120

Re: Target Numbers

Cybergoths 17 Aug 2008 11:56

I've been playing around with a similar spreadsheet which looks at the %chance for any single roll to achieve a set target number (ignoring the fact that you actually make two rolls as it adds too much in the way of availablity). I did this against a clean die roll vs ratings from 1-20, which having re-read some of the notes should really have been done with die roll results from 1 to 20 instead. Anyway, just to check that I have made a mistake here, am I correct that all modifiers are made to the die roll only?

If so, is there any particular reason why? The only one I could think of was that it means that a negative modifier is less likely to reduce a roll to zero (by zeroing a capability or profession rating).

Re: Target Numbers

Colin_Fredericks 17 Aug 2008 14:53

Modifiers are made to the die roll for two reasons.

1: It's a standard. If you have to remember whether a particular modifier goes to dice or skill, it's a pain.
2: It keeps people from wondering if a situational +1 to your Biotech makes you stronger/faster/tougher or not.

If I remember right, the only modifier to a Capability is the Metatech bonus from CVs.

Re: Target Numbers

Cybergoths 17 Aug 2008 16:48

Ahh! That makes sense, especially the 2nd point with some players. Just means I need to refigure the sheet I've done a little (but not too much as I guess I can ignore any negative die rolls as auto-failures. Just means that the sheet isn't as simple. :-/

Re: Target Numbers

Cybergoths 24 Aug 2008 23:13

Is there an easy way to get tables in here? I've been messing in Excel and was wondering if there is a way to post without exporting to a graphic?

Cheers,

Dom

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 29 Aug 2008 00:55

When you post a message, there's a "Table Wizard" button (second row, 4th button).
Otherwise, you make tables as follows:

|| header1 || header2 || header3 ||
|| stuff1 || stuff2 || stuff3 ||

which produces:

header1	header2	header3
stuff1	stuff2	stuff3

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 29 Aug 2008 01:05

I'm really happy to see you taking an interest in this.

Um, just to clarify your post from a while back, SA uses 10 sided dice (1-10). Not 20. Of course, you can add reserve, so there's a theoretical maximum of 20.

I've been doing more math since the posts above and have re-evaluated optimal re-rolling patterns. Namely, if you want to get the highest possible roll for whatever amount of reserve you're going to spend, and the reserve you're about to spend isn't your last one, you should always re-roll 6s and below. If it's the last reserve you're going to spend, you should re-roll 5s and below. If you're going to spend lots more reserve, you might want to re-roll 7s. It'll (slightly) reduce your average roll, but it'll also increase your variability. As you run out of reserve, re-rolling 7s lowers your average more and more.

Last edited on 16 Sep 2008 21:26 by TauCeti Show more

Re: Target Numbers

Cybergoths 31 Aug 2008 21:10

You've got it right - I do know it's d10 based, but the range to 20 was to account for spend of reserve and modifiers.

The bit that really adds complexity is the two different base ratings (capability and profession). What I was trying to get was a quick ready reckoner for myself when GMing.

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 16 Sep 2008 21:22

If there's a difference of more than 1 between the capability and the profession's stat, and the player cares (is willing to spend reserve), it's unlikely that the lower stat will come into effect (except as a source of reserve). It's probably easier to just ignore the lower value in your tables.

FYI: The odds of getting a result of exactly N on 2dX, pick the highest, is always (N*2-1))/X²

The odds of getting N or below is (N*(N+1))/(2*X²)

(I've run enough dice mechanics that I have these memorized. Or, well, I have the formula for triangular numbers memorized and I know what this looks like).

P.S. You might want to make that die result 1-22, for the +2 CV bonus.

Re: Target Numbers

Cybergoths 20 Sep 2008 12:00

I've been pondering somewhat heretically about the target number mechanism. It's probably driven by the fact that I've been reading too many indie games and others like HeroQuest.

Do we need it? I'm starting to wonder if it'd be better sticking to the opposed roll mechanics used for conflict resolution and just driving the resolution of any task that way. Not 100% certain on this, and I think I'll wait to play the game next weekend before I decide.

What do you think?

Re: Target Numbers

TauCeti 20 Sep 2008 12:52

Hmm….

I was going to point out a bunch of counter examples, but on thinking about them, you can just use contested checks.

From my game:
- convincing a world’s population to stop rioting (could have been a contest vs. the people’s Meta+CVs with bonuses for being a mob (which I would probably treat as a temporary CV in “causing chaos!” of about 4, goes away with the mob mentality).
- sneaking nanites into a base (could have been a contested roll vs. base security… I think it even was).
- researching new wormhole tech (hard to make contested, but there are already solid rules for this in the book (which I ignored ‘cause it was a plot driven event, not ability driven)

There are still (possibly) cases where people will try to push themselves (jump on top of a building when they technically don’t have the bio/string), but those could be handled as contested rolls vs. a “theoretical person with the minimum stats to do this sort of thing reliably”.

Personally, I’d still like to have some hard numbers for my own games, for the expedient of simple speed. But your argument that the contested tests system is sufficient has merit.

Re: Target Numbers

narfanator 25 Sep 2008 03:29

I like my method. I pick a rough number, or range, and then I ask the players to roll, and sometimes give them looks like "Is that seriously how easy you think this is?".

They usually overshoot.

It also means you can count on your players always succeeding at rolls.