A little suggestion.

I think its a step in the right direction, but its still rather rough. Should this warrant a new thread for this on its own if it has not already received one?

I like the idea of opening up the personal scale to power armors but is this really necessary? The changes you're proposing here could be done with the current system by simply allowing higher personal and armor scale units then adjusting the various power armors accordingly. That way we don't have to do much work changing the wiki and we get to keep all the things we built on the current DR system.

After all the upper scale of that proposed system is the same thing as saying 'ADR weapons can hurt starships'

I agree with Uso. Tossing out the Starship grade means that you can grab 84 Daisy armors with "VDR3" plasma rifles and in one combined volley they'll destroy a Sharie battleship.

Not to mention we're still in the number crunching trap and still not quite giving the armor effectiveness of any unit above personal grade justice.

I'm still going to support the idea I brought into my musing thread as superior.

Overview of the Fred's Musings on DR rating end proposal:
Third-Gen DR system

- Eliminate SP values in favor of GM/RP imagery as to how much punishment a target can take.

- Retain grade values of the second-gen DR system: this illustrate the armor resilience/weapon penetration strength.

- Use a simpler 15-unit scale, combining the approach with the first-gen system with the variety of the second.

- The benchmark is that an attack of a rating equal to the defense value is potentially lethal (no one designs a rifle to be medium anti-armor and not expect it to do its job: possibly kill a power armor with a well-placed attack).

An attack value weaker or greater than the defense value will get progressively more/less damaging on up to 3 steps, where the damage caused will be minor or devastating. Lesser attacks beyond likely will cause negligible damage whereas greater attacks probably will one-shot kill (i.e.: Medium anti-personnel weaponry [2] on a light armor target [4] will cause minimal damage [attack 2 steps weaker than target's protection] ).

• Range of values:
  01 ~ Light Personnel-grade protection/Anti-Personnel weapon
  02 ~ Medium Personnel-grade protection/Anti-Personnel weapon
  03 ~ Heavy Personnel-grade protection/Anti-Personnel weapon
  04 ~ Light Armor-grade protection/Anti-Armor weapon
  05 ~ Medium Armor-grade protection/Anti-Armor weapon
  06 ~ Heavy Armor-grade protection/Anti-Armor weapon
  07 ~ Light Mecha-grade protection/Anti-Mecha weapon
  08 ~ Medium Mecha-grade protection/Anti-Mecha weapon
  09 ~ Heavy Mecha-grade protection/Anti-Mecha weapon
  10 ~ Light Starship-grade protection/Anti-Mecha weapon
  11 ~ Medium Starship-grade protection/Anti-Starship weapon
  12 ~ Heavy Starship-grade protection/Anti-Starship weapon
  13 ~ Light Capital-grade protection/Anti-Starship weapon
  14 ~ Medium Capital-grade protection/Anti-Starship weapon
  15 ~ Heavy Capital-grade protection/Anti-Starship weapon

Suggested damage handling model was that if a medium armor survives a hit from a medium anti-armor weapon, it is likely compromised and will poorly fare an a repeat attack at the same location. More powerful attacks will tend to penetrate defenses and cause damage beyond them. Weaker attacks will likely gradually ablate/chew through the protection.

Suggested behavior for defenses such as the M6 Daisy's barrier protection is to count as 'temporary armor allowance', with an equal-rating attack 'draining' (halving) the protection, and the next 'depleting' it - weaker attacks drain it slower, larger ones topple it/overwhelm it faster. There's no precise science or math behind it - since that part is mostly handled by the referee.

Temporary defenses can recover equally fast, due to efforts from engineering crew (transferring/boosting power) to a power armored infantry soldier taking cover, taking a breather and allow his barrier to recover.

Click to expand...

Actually Fred I really like this idea and I want it to become reality. but the way I see it, it can't really be done all quickly. This is why I suggested this. I think giving mecha SP boost could wokr. And when I think about it, maybe some tanks too. Tasha could up to 30 dr too I think. But that is all just numbers. I just want what is supposed to be tough and deadly to feel tough and deadly even when you look at numbers.

Instead of coming up with horrible exploits in the system, we should be trying to troubleshoot and work towards a functional one. So I'm going to completely ignore the egoism shown so far and give an analysis of the system Wes posted.

It's flawed and still skewed towards the middle of the chart (like the old one). Having the increases be non-linear and more properly scaled to size would work much, much better, but it's a very good start.

The problems with the system that Wes posted could easily be solved by adding static defensive values, or "hardness". It's two numbers that we could tack onto shields and armor to give them fixed defensive ability that allows them to negate attacks beneath a certain threshold without being depleted.

But why add more unnecessary complexity?

Because an overly simplistic system as some people advocate tends to be full of loopholes and obvious exploits like using a volley of machinegun fire to bring down a battleship (only need about 250 heavy machineguns to bring down a Sharie!). Having a value beneath which the attack, at best, pings off against the armor, would also serve to restrict which platforms are viable against starships, make infantry (but not PA) irrelevant against mecha and vehicles without heavy weapons and quick thinking.

But Exhack, you have to think of the possibility that 250 heavy machine guns could do serious damage to a Sharie. The problem with the DR system is that there are several things that people don't take into account when dealing with damage:

Having 0 SP left does NOT mean you're destroyed. SP is just a representation of how much strength your armor has left. If I continually shoot at the walls of the shuttle bay until the ship gets down to 0 SP, will the ship be destroyed? No! That just means I've busted a hole in the ship.

On that note, location has a lot to do with it. If I continually shoot at the engines or the location of the aether generator, then I have the possibility of blowing up the ship. However, if I use the scenario above where I am shooting at the shuttle bay, it is impossible to take out the ship. This is because, no matter how much damage I do, they can just seal off that section of the ship.

Another thing people never realize is that DR is meant to take into account a certain time period (5 seconds, I believe). That means the DR for a machine gun is you shooting at a target for 5 seconds straight.

If you take all of these factors into account, heavy machine guns could breach a battle ship (Not destroy, but simply pierce through their armor). The problem is that people picture 250 guns vs a Sharie as those 250 machine guns surrounding the ship and firing. However, if the Damage Rating is used properly then it would really be those 250 machine guns all firing at a single point on the ship for 5 seconds, then is is plausible that they could start punching holes in that single location.

-----------------------------------------

This brings about the possibility: Would it make sense to implement some sort of sectional damage system? When I am destroying a ship, I can't take out one area and KABOOM (well, in some cases you can). What I think would work is if larger ships were split up into specific areas, only taking into account ones that are vital for ship operation (ex. Engines, Life Support, Weapons, Shield Generator, Shuttle Bay (, Bridge, etc). All areas would be at 3/4 current SP, and taking them out would hinder a certain area of the ship. So for a ship with 40SP, each area would have 30SP. Taking out something like the bridge would most likely kill most operators and hinder the ships abilities for communications and operation (AIs would still work though), or taking out something like the engines would obviously prevent any further movement from the ship and make it easier to board.

------------------------------------------

But back to what this topic was about...Mecha. I fell like adding in a Mecha scale would be a good idea, but not in the way most people would assume. The obvious way to create a Mecha scale would be to place it between Starship and Armor scales, making ADR5=MDR1 and MDR5=SDR1. But what if an MDR scale was integrated without weakening/powering any of the current.

Currently: SDR1=ADR5
SDR2=ADR10
SDR3=ADR15, etc

My proposed MDR scale would be based off of the ADR Scale with a curve of 250%, which would thus make the MDR scale similar to the SDR scale with a curve of 50%. Also, the MDR Scale would be limited to Tier 4 (This is for SP reasons, see below). Yes, it would involve using fractions of .5 if you're going entirely off of the DR scale, but I don't feel that something like that would be too complicating.

Proposed: MDR1 = ADR2.5 = SDR.5
MDR2 = ADR5 = SDR 1
MDR3 = ADR7.5 = SDR 1.5
MDR4 = ADR10 = SDR 2

I think this would be easiest because it helps to increase the power of Mecha, without weakening Armor or strengthening Ships. Keep in mind, my idea is just a template and I don't really intend for it to to be used as-is, I meant it simply to be a concept, and a possible method of upgrading the damage of Mecha.

A similar method could also be integrated to increase the SP of Mecha.

-----------------------------

Wes said:

The lowest tier on the starship size guideline chart has a minimum of 30 meters, so that would be the size that a mecha would have to be to get into the SDR scale.

Click to expand...

On the topic of Mecha having SP equivalent to fighters in the SDR Scale, I believe that requiring Mecha to meet the minimum requirements of the SDR scale in order to have higher SP is a bad idea.

If you look at the DR system, an ADR5 equivalent Mecha would have 25SP. However, an SDR1 Escort would have 10SP in the Ship Scale. As we all know, SDR1=ADR5, thus an SDR1 Escort has 50SP in the Armor Scale. But what happened to everything in between 25SP and 50SP?

I understand that this is what Wes was trying to do with his proposed, but I don't like the concept of combining the Armor and Ship Scales together for the purpose of SP. This is because if you ever have combat together between Starships you're going to deal with very large numbers, and you have to remember that everything in the SDR scale does x5 damage. I liked it a lot better where SP was split between the three different categories and each category had a set multiplier (It took 10 SDR1 hits to take out and SDR1 Vehicles, 5 ADR1 hits to take out an ADR1 Vehicle, and 1 PDR to take out 1PDR armor).

With my proposed system above, Mecha would still go in the Armor category (as they do now) and have a x5 multiplier, but that would effectively upgrade their SP. An MDR1 Mecha would have 12.5SP, an MDR2 Mecha would have 25SP, etc until and MDR4 Mecha would have 50SP (equivalent to a fighter). This would mean that an SDR4 Mecha would essentially be what Wes had earlier stated, something the size of an SDR1 vehicle that is shaped like a Mecha.

Sooo...

You guys want more numbers, with decimal values, and location based damage capacity for even more exacting details?

That'd be fine and all, if SARP was a Pen-and-Paper tabletop RPG (does anyone remember the Robotech/Macross RPG books Newton Hewell did art in), of if SARP was a videogame where all your calculations would be done backscene by a computer.

But that's not what SARP is. SARP is a forum roleplay, with people writing text portrayal of fictive characters in a fictive universe in it, with other people (faillible, whimsical and opinionated) acting as referee to the storylines most others go through.

Overdo it, and most of the added intricacies become lost, or distorted. The key is providing just enough to be informative, just enough to be interpreted, just enough to be indicative while allowing narrative freedoms to the Game Masters involved.

Exhack used the word egotist earlier. Maybe it applied to me. I don't know. What I do know is that I've had a long history of failures (not on this forum) trying to make RPG number crunching systems to structure combat within a freeform roleplay and I've never seen it really succeed. Add to that more age, experience, seasoning, game designing studies and such and I've developed faith that it's better to go along the grain than against it.

Combine those failures with my successes and their perceived caveats (both previous DR system were kind of established through me) - and yeah, I tend to think I know what I'm talking about. Sorry if it turns up sounding conceited.

I say: Define what you will need, what you will use how to make it as accessible and user friendly as possible (no more, no less), try to make it useable even to people with different interpretation both as guidance and allowance - and then you might get the goal done.

Fred, why not have both? What if SARP had two DR systems, one based on detail and numbers, and the other would be fairly vague and leave the interpretation up to the GM. The GM of each plot simply need specify which type his/her plot will be based on somewhere on the plot's wiki. This would satisfy both options, and keep everyone happy. All that would need to be done is make sure that both DR systems would be relatively equal in strength and armor of different types (ex. Armor isn't more powerful in one than the other).

Personally, I think it could work.

Because that'd open a can of worm, a Pandora's box of doubtful precedents and preferential perceptions both on the roleplaying side of this community; and the one that delves further in tech, performance and such.

Splitting in two is eventually going to blow up in our faces. For example, the more detailed one would be considered more valid and hardcore (i.e.: Uso), while the simpler comparative ranks version would be looked down on and be considered mostly for scrubs (i.e.: Doshii, Tom).

If you want accessibility in the community, you can't leave that sort of thing in. As lofty as we could think of ourselves within this roleplay community, some people do look down on others (for example, I saw it happen when the Nep plots finally got some momentum in around the birth of the NSS Alliance and Yamatai's made its species-restriction-order so we could make sure most Nep characters would end up in Nep plots; boy, did the Nep players suddenly get cliquish and snappy). Keeping one standard rather than two diminishes one avenue that could proliferate it.

So, while I can understand why having two could be considered good to have 'more options', that suggestion is unfortunately a little naive (I mean no offense by that: it's a kind of 'good intentions pave the way to hell' deal).

Honestly I look forward to anything you guys come up with.

Though I am honestly not sure how feasible(*), given how mech plot work right now, I would be kind of cool to do a Azorean mecha plot.


(*)There are so many things on my plate right now, I just have not had a chance to think about it recently. I only bring it up becuase I know Fay and SR are both big mecha fans.

Fred said:

I've had a long history of failures (not on this forum) trying to make RPG number crunching systems to structure combat within a freeform roleplay and I've never seen it really succeed.

Click to expand...

This is generally because you keep trying to invent a new system instead of learning from and improving the previous one. The result is that nothing changes and everyone has to go through a lot of effort for no payoff.

Consider that the change to Fred's current DR system with a geometric increase in weapon power over the old exponential damage scale led to both the huge discrepancy between armor and starship scale (see: the people who want to add a mecha scale) and no real effective way to handle armor. It also had no benefit to the RP since both systems did the same thing (Remove bombastic language in tech write ups).

The speed nerf had a similar problem. Halfing speeds had no effect on RP. Ships still go absurdly fast, and all the problems inherit to that are still there. You can still cross the known universe in a matter of days and for most plots only an hour or two of travel time has been added. Combat isn't any different either since the same general mechanics apply. (making the nepleslian ships be updated first led to the exact problems I brought up as well with Yamatai declaring all their ships get special exemptions from the rule, but that is not as important)


Both Wes and Fred's plans are going to fail for the exact same reason. Tweaking numbers a little bit doesn't really change anything. The numbers would need to be changed enough to cause a serious shift for the RP (like reducing speeds to the point where all ships can't destroy planets, or reducing FTL speeds to where the journey is closer to a boat crossing the Atlantic instead of a plane) or you can add a new mechanic (like the enforced lethality of the previous plan where the damage amounts are spelled out exactly).




There are also the people who say we don't need more rules. We've tried that before and it does not work well.

There are also people who say it should be left up to a GM's common sense but a lot of people do not know a lot of things. This ranges from people building ships that are poorly designed because they don't know how rockets work to people who don't understand just how powerful the weapons they are using actually are. For example Wes occasionally says the ASC can't blow up a planet when I've shown more than once it can not only destroy a planet like earth, but it could overkill earth and blow up Venus as well! Just like how rail guns that fire at a fraction of C are planet-killing weapons too.



The next thing we need from our rules system is for it to help players and GMs understand the weapons and armor they have in this setting. Anything less is a waste of everyone's time.