Star Army
Star ArmyⓇ is a landmark of forum roleplaying. Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love roleplaying, art, and worldbuilding. Anyone 18 or older may join for free. New members are welcome! Use the "Register" button below.
Note: This is a play-by-post RPG site. If you're looking for the tabletop miniatures wargame "5150: Star Army" instead, see Two Hour Wargames.
-
If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
-
Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
Damage Rating Conversion Chart
- Thread starter CadetNewb
- Start date
- Status
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
I understand what you're saying @Eistheid , but have you read the article for the Main Weapon Array? It honestly doesn't fire in just a straight line forward; it's able to pivot the beam itself to quite a degree. If they miss a bigger, heavier target, it's going to make the gunnery crew look less than competent. I really don't like that; it's better to get a hit or two in that the enemy is able to shrug off because 1) it shows the crew and equipment is up to par and 2) the enemy is bigger and tougher than they are. More importantly, it's one less option I got on the table. Rather than being able to choose between missing the shot, being unable to get the shot, and getting the shot but needing more, I only have the first two. Not only that, but if I avoid my prior example by never being able to get the shot rather than missing, the fight starts looking very silly if not outright stupid or absurd with both parties dancing around each other on tiptoe.
Too. Few. Options.
With what Fred and Wes are suggesting though, the triangle of armor, mobility and firepower is off balance. Only mobility and firepower matter, and the Super Eikan has firepower in excess but can't move to save it's life. That extra firepower is past the point of diminishing gains, as both are as lethal as the other at the very least, but one has the advantage of speed and agility where the other does not. As you pointed out yourself, the best the Eikan can do is make it so that a clean shot is dangerous, but here's the root of what's bothering me; tactically, the Eikan is worth the same (at best) as a much lower cost Plumeria.
There isn't much point in having it when it's only as effective as a much smaller, less expensive ship. One could even reason that building larger ships is pointless, and simply build far more vast numbers of smaller ships similar to the Plumeria. Honestly @Fred , @Wes , the Plumeria is just an example I'm using here; the argument I'm making extends to all ships that are built in this manner, and also affects ships that aren't of this type of construction.
This new system is great from Personnel to Vehicles, but I think the ships are out-of-whack.
I'll change the chart back to 'Vehicle' later today Fred.
Too. Few. Options.
With what Fred and Wes are suggesting though, the triangle of armor, mobility and firepower is off balance. Only mobility and firepower matter, and the Super Eikan has firepower in excess but can't move to save it's life. That extra firepower is past the point of diminishing gains, as both are as lethal as the other at the very least, but one has the advantage of speed and agility where the other does not. As you pointed out yourself, the best the Eikan can do is make it so that a clean shot is dangerous, but here's the root of what's bothering me; tactically, the Eikan is worth the same (at best) as a much lower cost Plumeria.
There isn't much point in having it when it's only as effective as a much smaller, less expensive ship. One could even reason that building larger ships is pointless, and simply build far more vast numbers of smaller ships similar to the Plumeria. Honestly @Fred , @Wes , the Plumeria is just an example I'm using here; the argument I'm making extends to all ships that are built in this manner, and also affects ships that aren't of this type of construction.
This new system is great from Personnel to Vehicles, but I think the ships are out-of-whack.
I'll change the chart back to 'Vehicle' later today Fred.
Hmm... I had actually been recently looking the Sharie's main weapon array which boasts a larger area of effect. With the way the Sharie is designed specifically to promote a larger area of effect with its weapon I had thought that it provided more versatility than the Plumeria's small, but still destructive main weapon. It seems that the Plumeria threatens a much larger area than I expected however...
To address your concerns @CadetNewb perhaps it would be good to look at the ships presently in the setting and re-evaluate how they're supposed to function. For the Super Eikan it would probably be wise to state that it has impressive shielding to provide the capability to take more hits. Yamatai has always felt like a faction that relies on energetic defences rather than physical ones for the most part, as such the hull taking multiple hits from main guns doesn't seem like something that would be widely seen among the SAoY's vessels. Their goal is largely to avoid taking hits to the hull to begin with.
Other ships would have to be written differently, for example I believe that the dense heavy armour of Nepleslian vessels would be called to the forefront. It should be suggested that a Nepleslian vessel would be harder to break after the shields fell to demonstrate the heavier construction for example allowing the ship to maintain integrity and come apart more slowly while taking multiple hits. It comes down to flavour of the equipment and how they handle the damage dealt.
I believe @Fred mentioned previously that in their plots they tend to use shields to provide a buffer for players' longevity and that they like to have damage dealt to the actual unit prove more threatening encouraging players to play smart and work within the limits of their primary defences (their shields) rather than relying on physical armour to keep them safe. This also introduces the need to juggle power systems in the heat of combat adding a layer of complexity as they prioritize mobility, defences, or weapons with damage making their choices mean more as the systems fail.
I believe the way all of this would function would also give conflict more impact and raise the stakes if the crew has to scramble to return shields to functionality while trying to preserve the ship knowing that a direct hit could prove fatal. There are probably more complex scenarios that could come of it but I'm honestly a little inexperienced with the implementation of starship combat in the setting at the moment, as such I can only theorize as to what my priorities and options would be.
To address your concerns @CadetNewb perhaps it would be good to look at the ships presently in the setting and re-evaluate how they're supposed to function. For the Super Eikan it would probably be wise to state that it has impressive shielding to provide the capability to take more hits. Yamatai has always felt like a faction that relies on energetic defences rather than physical ones for the most part, as such the hull taking multiple hits from main guns doesn't seem like something that would be widely seen among the SAoY's vessels. Their goal is largely to avoid taking hits to the hull to begin with.
Other ships would have to be written differently, for example I believe that the dense heavy armour of Nepleslian vessels would be called to the forefront. It should be suggested that a Nepleslian vessel would be harder to break after the shields fell to demonstrate the heavier construction for example allowing the ship to maintain integrity and come apart more slowly while taking multiple hits. It comes down to flavour of the equipment and how they handle the damage dealt.
I believe @Fred mentioned previously that in their plots they tend to use shields to provide a buffer for players' longevity and that they like to have damage dealt to the actual unit prove more threatening encouraging players to play smart and work within the limits of their primary defences (their shields) rather than relying on physical armour to keep them safe. This also introduces the need to juggle power systems in the heat of combat adding a layer of complexity as they prioritize mobility, defences, or weapons with damage making their choices mean more as the systems fail.
I believe the way all of this would function would also give conflict more impact and raise the stakes if the crew has to scramble to return shields to functionality while trying to preserve the ship knowing that a direct hit could prove fatal. There are probably more complex scenarios that could come of it but I'm honestly a little inexperienced with the implementation of starship combat in the setting at the moment, as such I can only theorize as to what my priorities and options would be.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
Just because there aren't many options to be had doesn't mean we should use that to justify having even fewer on the table
@Doshii Jun
Going back to what @Eistheid pointed out, yes, shields are used as a buffer for player longevity. However, having the option to use armor in the same - but more dire - manner is also a very useful tool. Should a player over-extend and have their shields or barriers 'popped', I want to be able to rough up their character without killing them or having the injuries be threatening to the point that they're out of the fight. Only if they continue to make mistakes and not 'Git Gud' as Doshii pointed out, that I would consider more severe injuries that could KO them for the remainder of the fight or more. Rather than having it be a stark 'Yes/No' or 'Black and White', it's far more flexible and useful for GMs, RP and storytelling in general to have many shades of gray to choose from as deemed appropriate.
It's basically good game design, something that should be taken into account even here; take the first Halo game for an example. Covenant weapons depleted shields more quickly than health, giving the player room to learn from their mistakes and keep playing. The developers intended the loss of shields to be something to worry about, while the loss of health was something to be more fearful of. And when the flood came around, terrifying, as unlike the Covenant, they would eat through armor more quickly. Not instantly, but quickly enough it was something a player would fear, but slow enough that they could still try and counter.
Having more options adds complexity and depth, further enriching RP. Armor acting as a final warning for mistakes made is useful, but by the looks of things, that option is not on the table.
As an example, it means a reduced likelihood of scenes where the ship is in dire straits, armor is melted and glowing, the hull is breached, the superstructure is visible, crew members are being sucked into space and damage control is desperately trying to seal off bulkheads. All because the ships simply vanish once the shields are gone instead.
That boils down to having less opportunities to RP, which is my real issue here.
@Doshii Jun
Going back to what @Eistheid pointed out, yes, shields are used as a buffer for player longevity. However, having the option to use armor in the same - but more dire - manner is also a very useful tool. Should a player over-extend and have their shields or barriers 'popped', I want to be able to rough up their character without killing them or having the injuries be threatening to the point that they're out of the fight. Only if they continue to make mistakes and not 'Git Gud' as Doshii pointed out, that I would consider more severe injuries that could KO them for the remainder of the fight or more. Rather than having it be a stark 'Yes/No' or 'Black and White', it's far more flexible and useful for GMs, RP and storytelling in general to have many shades of gray to choose from as deemed appropriate.
It's basically good game design, something that should be taken into account even here; take the first Halo game for an example. Covenant weapons depleted shields more quickly than health, giving the player room to learn from their mistakes and keep playing. The developers intended the loss of shields to be something to worry about, while the loss of health was something to be more fearful of. And when the flood came around, terrifying, as unlike the Covenant, they would eat through armor more quickly. Not instantly, but quickly enough it was something a player would fear, but slow enough that they could still try and counter.
Having more options adds complexity and depth, further enriching RP. Armor acting as a final warning for mistakes made is useful, but by the looks of things, that option is not on the table.
As an example, it means a reduced likelihood of scenes where the ship is in dire straits, armor is melted and glowing, the hull is breached, the superstructure is visible, crew members are being sucked into space and damage control is desperately trying to seal off bulkheads. All because the ships simply vanish once the shields are gone instead.
That boils down to having less opportunities to RP, which is my real issue here.
That's exactly what I'd use to justify it. It's called "get creative with what you've got."
OK, OK, I'll stop the pithy statements.
Fred
Retired Staff
Not a system. A guideline.
I did think of expanding it
Class 10-12 for a frigate group. Class 13-15 for a destroyer group. Class 16-18 for the cruisers. And so forth.
...but I thrashed the idea. It was horrible on the respect that something a frigate did to a cruiser was no longer relevant because the span became too wide. Whereas just not a scoutship and the kind of weaponry you'd expect on it, while not all that effective, can still have heavy cruisers stand up and take notice.
Basically, it's just right. Hence I'll state something I did before: less is more. We don't need pin-point precision here. Just a categorization which works.
Also, don't get too hung up on the lethality as to Time To Kill. Ships don't have hit points anymore, remember? It's not because I have a knife and use it that I'll assuredly kill the person I attack. The Plumeria's main gun is like that against an Eikan. It's not because it can do it that it assuredly will. Whereas if I have a bazooka with a payload meant for a tank, and fire it on a person... if I hit, it's probably bad for the person.
Shielding is also a factor that's to be considered, with the recommended average strength of a shield in a roleplay being essentially "two potentially lethal blows". The shield is not tougher than the shielded ship so much as tougher than a "vital spot" on the ship would be. After all, the ship can potentially take multiple potentially lethal hits and as long as it doesn't hit something vital, it might be able to keep going. Whereas, the shield depletes the same way regardless of where it is hit.
* * *
Cadet, take the Plumeria in perspective. The aether shock array is its claim to fame as a pocket battleship; as in, it allows it to compete with larger capital vessels. The positron weapons are its ship-killing "dogfighting weapons" when it fights something around its size-class. The turrets, however, don't share that same potency - they'll be deadlier against lighter craft, but against things that the Plumeria is made to compete with, it'll merely damage them.
The truth is... the Plumeria was made that way. It already does that. There's no point griping about how it might break things balance-wise when it's already happening. Then, the information listed is just being accurate. The values I selected are the ones which cinematically would deliver what they've already been doing in the roleplay.
* * *
That's actually false. Weapon pods and drones are historically super-brittle in general. Just a class below is, in my opinion, extremely generous. I'd leave them unmentioned, lest we start adding categories for missile/torpedo casings, probes and so forth. Our narrative probably doesn't need that much detail anyhow.
Last edited:
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
If that's the case @Fred , would you be open to the idea of the Lethality section's text specifically pointing out that the meaning of "Potentially Lethal" is more up to GM interpretation? Right now, it's giving examples which serve to make it more clear-cut, giving it the appearance that Class matched items will have the defense beaten quite quickly, and that survival will depend more on shot placement or misplacement.
Fred
Retired Staff
I'm not sure what kind of explanation would make it more explained. You use an anti-armor rifle. You fire on a power armor. Do you expect it to die if you hit it? Yes? Then it's anti-armor. If it can't do the job, why call it anti-armor?
But then, if you don't hit the target on the head or the chest... I think it's pretty normal to relate with it not being a one-shot deal. I expect GMs to fudge values one way or the other to their liking. It kind of seems disingenuous to mention "also, we expect you to fudge these values".
But then, if you don't hit the target on the head or the chest... I think it's pretty normal to relate with it not being a one-shot deal. I expect GMs to fudge values one way or the other to their liking. It kind of seems disingenuous to mention "also, we expect you to fudge these values".
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
It's not to make it more explained; it's too well explained. Rather than acting as a guideline, it's acting more as a rule by implying that it will be a one-shot deal when it hits center mass, as it specifically points out that when Classes match, the weapon won't be lethal if it only hits limbs. The idea of a single round from the LASR going through the M2A1 Mindy's chestplate, or the HPAR going through the Daisy's in one shot is not something I like. Even if it takes a good half-second to a full second burst to chew through that equivalent protection class, I still consider that being effective and "Potentially Lethal".
I also dislike that the rate of fire is not considered in a weapon's Class, with the class being given only considering things on a per-projectile basis. As it currently is, it seems that the system implies that the older Mindy would have been instantly cheesed should a LASR catch it without barriers, and the HPAR would do the same to the current Daisy should it be without barriers. Even with shields or barriers, that's just one bullet more, when each weapon is very fast firing.
And that's not even regarding ships yet.
I also dislike that the rate of fire is not considered in a weapon's Class, with the class being given only considering things on a per-projectile basis. As it currently is, it seems that the system implies that the older Mindy would have been instantly cheesed should a LASR catch it without barriers, and the HPAR would do the same to the current Daisy should it be without barriers. Even with shields or barriers, that's just one bullet more, when each weapon is very fast firing.
And that's not even regarding ships yet.
Fred
Retired Staff
IF you don't think an LASR's projectile should be able to kill a power armor, and that an HPAR should not be able to kill a Daisy in the same, doesn't that instead impliy that you think they're actually weaker than that?
My argument is about calling things by what they are. If you don't believe that the LASR can kill a lightly armored power armor in a single strike... then it's likely not a Class 4 at all and probably weaker. And that is acceptable.
Then, the alternative is:
1) Use the current baseline, house-rule it in a plot because of personnal vision;
2) See if opinion is shared, and then simply consider the weapon mislabeled and change its label to something more accurate to the narrative.
Also, tell me, in real life, how is a submachinegun shot more lethal than a handgun shot? I think both can about kill the same kind of things in general. The Damage Rating is not a calculation of how much total damage a weapon can do once used. It's one complementary part of a weapon's description, along with Rate-of-Fire. I'll let the GM figure out of rest rather than instate some metric like the popular DPS (Damage Per Second) referenced to often in MMORPGs.
My argument is about calling things by what they are. If you don't believe that the LASR can kill a lightly armored power armor in a single strike... then it's likely not a Class 4 at all and probably weaker. And that is acceptable.
Then, the alternative is:
1) Use the current baseline, house-rule it in a plot because of personnal vision;
2) See if opinion is shared, and then simply consider the weapon mislabeled and change its label to something more accurate to the narrative.
Also, tell me, in real life, how is a submachinegun shot more lethal than a handgun shot? I think both can about kill the same kind of things in general. The Damage Rating is not a calculation of how much total damage a weapon can do once used. It's one complementary part of a weapon's description, along with Rate-of-Fire. I'll let the GM figure out of rest rather than instate some metric like the popular DPS (Damage Per Second) referenced to often in MMORPGs.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
The thing is, I do think a LASR should be able to kill a power armor, and that the HPAR should be able to do the same to something of its own class. Just not in so few rounds. Though you define "Potentially Lethal" on the outcome chart as a single round, I define it as a small hand-full of rounds; a good burst right at center of mass. Not only that, but I consider what a weapon can do over time in addition to what it will do on a single-shot basis. Using your SMG and pistol comparison, I'd say that though both would be just as lethal on a single shot basis, the SMG is more lethal over time. In just one second, it can fire around 12 or 13 bullets, and in half a second, maybe 6. In the end, it's more tissue trauma and more ballistic fibers torn, meaning, it's a more effective weapon.
I would rather focus on the end result than rather than rating a weapon on a per-shot basis and letting not only GMs but also players scratch their heads. It's that much more guesswork for them to do, when we can just keep this guideline simple and easy to use. That's why I would prefer to consider both individual shot, and rate of fire when determining a weapon's classification.
Though we could down-tier the class on the LASR and various other weapons, I'm hesitant to do so. its own name would be inappropriate if it can't fit into the same class.
I would rather focus on the end result than rather than rating a weapon on a per-shot basis and letting not only GMs but also players scratch their heads. It's that much more guesswork for them to do, when we can just keep this guideline simple and easy to use. That's why I would prefer to consider both individual shot, and rate of fire when determining a weapon's classification.
Though we could down-tier the class on the LASR and various other weapons, I'm hesitant to do so. its own name would be inappropriate if it can't fit into the same class.
Fred
Retired Staff
It may be that its own name was inappropriate.
Leave alone that Doshii created the weapon, when applied in-roleplay, the LASR has always been considered something of an underdog. People wanted to like it, tried hard to even, but it seemed rather underpowered compared to the other weapons available to them. The only thing it ever seemed really useful doing was sawing through Mishhu. Considering that, I'm pretty comfortable with the label of it being Class 3 and the LASR not quite living up to its name. It still handles as presented in the setting. The LASR, as a Class 3 weapon, will probably do pretty close to how you envision it against a Mindy. My own mental benchmark was using it against a Daisy and seeing what kind of hurt the weapon would do it.
I'm actually okay with this. Though I did think one possible impact of the DR revision would've been to help the LASR actually live up to its name. Chicken and the egg, I guess. One way or the other works; I have no problem seeing it pierce through the lightly-armored iteration of the Mindy 2 (which I created). The Mindy was a skill-based glass cannon after all that mostly depended on its shields and speed to keep out of harm's way. It was never reputed for its resilience (and looking at how Wes treats the Mindy, his narrative seems to support that).
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Damage Rating is a part of a weapon description. End result is a GM's job, not the weapon description. The player just needs to know how good the tool is.
I think you're getting overly hung over that particular bit. To help, let me quote some wise words someone wrote on this topic awhile ago.
Leave alone that Doshii created the weapon, when applied in-roleplay, the LASR has always been considered something of an underdog. People wanted to like it, tried hard to even, but it seemed rather underpowered compared to the other weapons available to them. The only thing it ever seemed really useful doing was sawing through Mishhu. Considering that, I'm pretty comfortable with the label of it being Class 3 and the LASR not quite living up to its name. It still handles as presented in the setting. The LASR, as a Class 3 weapon, will probably do pretty close to how you envision it against a Mindy. My own mental benchmark was using it against a Daisy and seeing what kind of hurt the weapon would do it.
I'm actually okay with this. Though I did think one possible impact of the DR revision would've been to help the LASR actually live up to its name. Chicken and the egg, I guess. One way or the other works; I have no problem seeing it pierce through the lightly-armored iteration of the Mindy 2 (which I created). The Mindy was a skill-based glass cannon after all that mostly depended on its shields and speed to keep out of harm's way. It was never reputed for its resilience (and looking at how Wes treats the Mindy, his narrative seems to support that).
And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Damage Rating is a part of a weapon description. End result is a GM's job, not the weapon description. The player just needs to know how good the tool is.
If you can come to this conclusion, other people can. I don't see a need to spell it out in specific as a per-shot lethality value, and some DPS value, on top of the fire rate value.
I think you're getting overly hung over that particular bit. To help, let me quote some wise words someone wrote on this topic awhile ago.
Lose the hit points, they don't matter anymore. Any cumulative damage representation doesn't matter as well, because we don't have hit points anyways. Let the details defining the weapon define it; the Damage Rating is just one part of that.
Last edited:
Some notes from the my view as manager of the Star Army of Yamatai, and creator of many of the main Yamataian starships:
The LASR is a moderately underpowered weapon (and it could probably use replacement as some point). There's been plenty of missions where it has had disappointing results in battles with Rippers, to the point that on the Eucharis most of the infantry started carrying DAISY plasma rifles.
The Plumeria is made to kill ships bigger than itself (and in quantity by using the cone-area-effect main weapon), but it's not as tough as those bigger ships. It's an upgrade of the Sakura, and the Sakura was basically designed with large fleet battles in mind where huge swaths of ships would just pump out as much destruction as possible as fast as possible because expected survival rates were very low if you weren't striking first. The idea was to get the drop on some Mishhu force via stealth and then "unleash the f---ing fury" and take out as many enemy ships as possible before they could retaliate. So you could say it's a sort of glass cannon. The Plumeria's turrets were only added a year or so often the original design, as part of making it a more rounded ship, and to replace the old, crappy weapon pods.
The LASR is a moderately underpowered weapon (and it could probably use replacement as some point). There's been plenty of missions where it has had disappointing results in battles with Rippers, to the point that on the Eucharis most of the infantry started carrying DAISY plasma rifles.
The Plumeria is made to kill ships bigger than itself (and in quantity by using the cone-area-effect main weapon), but it's not as tough as those bigger ships. It's an upgrade of the Sakura, and the Sakura was basically designed with large fleet battles in mind where huge swaths of ships would just pump out as much destruction as possible as fast as possible because expected survival rates were very low if you weren't striking first. The idea was to get the drop on some Mishhu force via stealth and then "unleash the f---ing fury" and take out as many enemy ships as possible before they could retaliate. So you could say it's a sort of glass cannon. The Plumeria's turrets were only added a year or so often the original design, as part of making it a more rounded ship, and to replace the old, crappy weapon pods.
The LASR wasn't meant to be the most effective anti-armor weapon around, even when I came up with it. Shielded mecha of any sort eliminate most of its lethality -- which is stated in the article.
No offense taken by the assessments; just offering the creator's perspective, if it helps.
No offense taken by the assessments; just offering the creator's perspective, if it helps.
CadetNewb
Well-Known Member
There's a number of issues here that I'm concerned about, so I'm going to try and address them one at a time.
I'm very hesitant to go with the DR system not taking into account a weapon's rate of fire mainly because I'm worried it's going to result in some weirdness. There's weapons which have a very high rate of fire, with their individual projectiles doing very little damage. As a result of this, they will be placed much lower on the guideline, and look out of place in comparison to the end-result that the user witnesses in RP. The LASR was merely being used as something for us to work off of, and continuing with that, it would likely end up as Class 3 even though it would destroy Class 4 items in a second. Meanwhile, something like the Assault Mass Repeater would likely also end up as a Class 3 item, even though it would very quickly take apart armor that's Class 5 or even 6. That thing shoots at 72 rounds per second. And then there's continuous beam weapons too - I'm not sure how those would figure into this even.
I don't believe I'm thinking in terms of hitpoints, but rather, end-result. What happens in combat. I expected that the guideline would state that Weapon A would defeat Armor B in a very short amount of time and only giving us a very rough ballpark so it was up to interpretation. What Fred's suggesting though, strikes me as incomplete to the point that interpretation would vary greatly from person to person, not a small amount. The DR guideline seems to be too restrictive in some parts, and too undefined in others.
Again, regarding the LASR, I understand that it's taken to be an anemic and underpowered weapon. It just happened to be unfortunate enough to be the guinea pig for our thought experiments here.
With the Plumeria and it's Main Weapon Array however, I'm just plain shocked. Shocked because of how wildly inaccurate the current DR system is in giving players or GMs an idea of how effective weapons or armor all are. It's a bit much for me to take. To destroy a shieldless Super Eikan in one shot, that's SDR 40 going off of the current system. Which only goes up to SDR 5. I honestly don't know what to be more shocked about. Should I be shocked over the fact that the Plumeria's cannon hits just that hard, or the fact that the current DR system has fallen so utterly short.
It's great we're working on something to replace it, but damn. This is some bad shit.
I'm very hesitant to go with the DR system not taking into account a weapon's rate of fire mainly because I'm worried it's going to result in some weirdness. There's weapons which have a very high rate of fire, with their individual projectiles doing very little damage. As a result of this, they will be placed much lower on the guideline, and look out of place in comparison to the end-result that the user witnesses in RP. The LASR was merely being used as something for us to work off of, and continuing with that, it would likely end up as Class 3 even though it would destroy Class 4 items in a second. Meanwhile, something like the Assault Mass Repeater would likely also end up as a Class 3 item, even though it would very quickly take apart armor that's Class 5 or even 6. That thing shoots at 72 rounds per second. And then there's continuous beam weapons too - I'm not sure how those would figure into this even.
I don't believe I'm thinking in terms of hitpoints, but rather, end-result. What happens in combat. I expected that the guideline would state that Weapon A would defeat Armor B in a very short amount of time and only giving us a very rough ballpark so it was up to interpretation. What Fred's suggesting though, strikes me as incomplete to the point that interpretation would vary greatly from person to person, not a small amount. The DR guideline seems to be too restrictive in some parts, and too undefined in others.
Again, regarding the LASR, I understand that it's taken to be an anemic and underpowered weapon. It just happened to be unfortunate enough to be the guinea pig for our thought experiments here.
With the Plumeria and it's Main Weapon Array however, I'm just plain shocked. Shocked because of how wildly inaccurate the current DR system is in giving players or GMs an idea of how effective weapons or armor all are. It's a bit much for me to take. To destroy a shieldless Super Eikan in one shot, that's SDR 40 going off of the current system. Which only goes up to SDR 5. I honestly don't know what to be more shocked about. Should I be shocked over the fact that the Plumeria's cannon hits just that hard, or the fact that the current DR system has fallen so utterly short.
It's great we're working on something to replace it, but damn. This is some bad shit.
So, I'm sort of exhausted right now so this might not be the best idea posting, however something has occurred to me.
What if instead of fussing over per shot damage, or damage with multiple rounds or continuous beams, or whatever, we instead simple label items based on their intended role?
If we have a light anti-PA weapon with 1000RPM I think it would be fairly safe to assume that it's intended purpose isn't to kill with a single round. I mean sure theoretically a single round could get the job done but that isn't how it is designed to be operated. Sort of like how in real life we don't design weapons based on the lethality of a single round unless it is a precision weapon, instead we label them by application such as; 'heavy machine gun' or 'personal defence weapon' or whatever. These weapons aren't categorized based on the way single rounds or even multiple rounds function against a target but rather the application of the weapons system with some being intended for urban environments, suppressive fire, or whatever.
To give a more relevant example; A Daisy's Plasma Rifle from what I've been able to gather is intended for combating medium to heavy PAs. To simplify things I would list it as an Anti Heavy PA weapon (Class 6) given that it is the upper end of what it is designed to kill. Not what it can kill, but what it is ideally effective against. This is where @Fred 's table showing the increased or diminishing returns on higher or lower unit types would come into play. As saturating a target at 50% or even 25% effectiveness would still kill it just with more effort involved.
Given what I've read about the LASR in this thread, I would actually say that it is supposed to be a Heavy Anti Personnel weapon (Class 3) in line with this would be how it leaves much to be desired in stopping power against light and medium PAs which would be referenced as roughly 50% (Light PA) and 25% (Medium PA) effectiveness. This would account for it's lacklustre performance and explain how it has to chew through PAs rather than put them down quickly. This works in line with what I've seen that the alternatives the Daisy Plasma weapon and the Aether Saber Rifle are considered overkill for some applications which would explain why the comparatively weak LASR was implemented.
To reiterate again, we should label weapons on what they are most effective at killing rather than what they would need to time to kill, because while a light handgun can possibly chew through body armour over the course of a clip it wouldn't be considered efficient at the task even though it was capable. In the same way we wouldn't call the handgun a heavy anti-personnel weapon we shouldn't call the LASR an anti-armour weapon.
At this point I think I'm just rewording what I've already written so I hope it gets the point across.
What if instead of fussing over per shot damage, or damage with multiple rounds or continuous beams, or whatever, we instead simple label items based on their intended role?
If we have a light anti-PA weapon with 1000RPM I think it would be fairly safe to assume that it's intended purpose isn't to kill with a single round. I mean sure theoretically a single round could get the job done but that isn't how it is designed to be operated. Sort of like how in real life we don't design weapons based on the lethality of a single round unless it is a precision weapon, instead we label them by application such as; 'heavy machine gun' or 'personal defence weapon' or whatever. These weapons aren't categorized based on the way single rounds or even multiple rounds function against a target but rather the application of the weapons system with some being intended for urban environments, suppressive fire, or whatever.
To give a more relevant example; A Daisy's Plasma Rifle from what I've been able to gather is intended for combating medium to heavy PAs. To simplify things I would list it as an Anti Heavy PA weapon (Class 6) given that it is the upper end of what it is designed to kill. Not what it can kill, but what it is ideally effective against. This is where @Fred 's table showing the increased or diminishing returns on higher or lower unit types would come into play. As saturating a target at 50% or even 25% effectiveness would still kill it just with more effort involved.
Given what I've read about the LASR in this thread, I would actually say that it is supposed to be a Heavy Anti Personnel weapon (Class 3) in line with this would be how it leaves much to be desired in stopping power against light and medium PAs which would be referenced as roughly 50% (Light PA) and 25% (Medium PA) effectiveness. This would account for it's lacklustre performance and explain how it has to chew through PAs rather than put them down quickly. This works in line with what I've seen that the alternatives the Daisy Plasma weapon and the Aether Saber Rifle are considered overkill for some applications which would explain why the comparatively weak LASR was implemented.
To reiterate again, we should label weapons on what they are most effective at killing rather than what they would need to time to kill, because while a light handgun can possibly chew through body armour over the course of a clip it wouldn't be considered efficient at the task even though it was capable. In the same way we wouldn't call the handgun a heavy anti-personnel weapon we shouldn't call the LASR an anti-armour weapon.
At this point I think I'm just rewording what I've already written so I hope it gets the point across.
I'm all for this: Rate of fire shit really messes the DR system up: You could have ten small turrets on a ship and be more mathematically devestating than any main cannon; plus, any weapon is usually designed to kill a particular kind of target.
The other thing is the weapon also tends to have perks and flaws. High rate of fire or round velocity for mobile targets, or exchanging all that for parabolic or NLOS firing, the way missiles are generally much slower than rounds of the same size, etc.
The other thing is the weapon also tends to have perks and flaws. High rate of fire or round velocity for mobile targets, or exchanging all that for parabolic or NLOS firing, the way missiles are generally much slower than rounds of the same size, etc.
Fred
Retired Staff
Of course it's shocking; it's an Aether Shock Array. *rimshot*
More seriously, though, you need to consider the intended imagery. The Shock Array is inspired effectively by the Macross Cannon. In fact, the spread was initially the only attack mode the Sakura gunship had. The other modes were added... probably mostly at my insistence (back when I was co-admin with Wes, and tried to steer things more toward ship-to-ship skirmishes rather than the imagery of a single ship wiping out many).
The flaw of that, though, is the intended purpose of the lethality table. How something less protected is even more affected, how something more protected is even less. This would strike me as much - I'll use Cadetnewb's word - undefined.
I don't quite get what you're in support of. Rate of Fire should be integrated in a Damage Rating, or not?
I think Damage Rating is better left off as how effective your weapon is, per shot. It's just one of the bits of information in a weapon entry, the same as range, rate of fire, etcetera.
- Status
