Damage Rating Revision Discussion

[Wes]

Re: Removing the DR System

DR always has been optional/fudge-able by the GMs, but required for tech submitters. I think one of the biggest driving forces why this topic was posted is because for tech reviewers, a lot of submissions are trying to abuse the DR system by posting multiple layers of DR instead of an overall DR rating (there should only be two layers--shields and armor) and this delays approval and clogs up the tech forum, which is a major source of disgruntlement on the site.

Basically what I get from this discussion is that we need to keep the current system until a new one can be decided on in the DR Revision Discussion thread.

 

[Doshii Jun]

Re: Removing the DR System

That sounds fair.

It's only natural for submitters to try and game the system -- everyone wants to be No. 1 after all -- we just have to not allow them to do that. At all.

 

[OsakanOne]

Re: Removing the DR System

Sounds fair, Wes.

Maybe it's worth having a rule of thumb that you don't add multiple DRs together to get a total for armor plating. Like, if the higher external armor is trashed, so is everything inside.

The reason for layering is if you crash or get glanced by a big round, the resulting hole doesn't suck you ass first into the outer darkness.

Edit:
100 points for anyone who recognizes the quote.

 

[Fred]

Fred's revision on the DR system

I'm doing this here, frankly mostly because I don't feel comfortable with the Wiki.

Comments creeped up occasionally on the cumbersomeness of the current DR system, it being outdated. I was struck, several times, by how much an idea I put up a while ago seemed so much better in my eyes. So, on Wes' prodding, I'm resubmitting it.

So, without further delay, I introduce you all to...

* * *

FRED'S DAMAGE SCALE

The damage rating system I propose essentially involves two primary values: grade and rating.

Grades:
There are 3 existing grades: Personnel, Mecha and Starship. Therefore, the armor of a power armor would be considered mecha-grade armor; while a weapon made to damage starships would be classified as Anti-Starship.

Ratings:
Much more straightforward than the grades, ratings are values going from 1 to 5, respectively classified within their grade as very light, light, moderate, heavy, very heavy. These values are for the most part weapon-only.

Difference between grades:
Personnel -> Mecha -> Starship

Straightforward enough, no? The point is that these tiers have different scopes. All but the most powerful anti-personnel weapons are going to put a dent on mecha-grade armor, just like we don't expect the Mindy's anti-armor weaponry to be of much use against a starship because of the materials and building processes involved.

So, no lower grade weapon can damage an armor one tier up unless it has a rating of 5 (very heavy). In the same fashion, a weapon used on a lower-tier target finds its damage effectively multiplied by 5 (5 anti-personnel damage = 1 anti-mecha damage) and a weapon system higher by two tiers by 25 (1 anti-ship damage = 5 anti-mecha damage = 25 anti-personnel damage).


How to integrate it:
On the purpose of defense, it's enough for now to make mention of the grade of the ship's armor, and the material it is composed of... in the absence of being able to determine how much abuse a ship can ultimately take (structural rating?). The material should usually prove sufficient to Game Masters to evaluate just how tough a vehicle is.

On the purpose of attack, my personnal preference is to put aside the weapon types and instead attach their intended role as the determining factor for their damage values.

In the case of Anti-Starship weapons:
1- Very Light, Tertiary/Point-Defense weapons.
2- Light, Secondary weaponry.
3- Moderate, Primary weapon types such as the archtypal 'main guns'.

I felt that some weapons like mines and torpedoes were terribly undervalued by being rated in the same DR 7-10 when the main concept behind guided projectile weapons was to deliver a stronger damage potential close to a target in a way a direct fire weapon could not. Therefore, I reserved the top ratings to such weapons (anti-personnel would have bazookas, anti-mecha could be rocket launchers and very powerful melee weaponry, etc...)

Back to anti-starship weaponry...
4- Heavy, 'low-energy' waheads (such as nukes)
5- Very Heavy, 'high-energy' warheads (such as Anti-Matter)

Contrary to the previous DR system, the values pretty much represent what they are, meaning that a point-defense weapon is two times weaker than a secondary weapon turret and a main gun-type weapon would be three times stronger.

In addition, my personnal target is to make the damage potential delivered being more or less equal to the weapon's capacity to harm a vehicle or target under 10 seconds, be it through a single shot, a salvo or a volley. This makes an impact on firing rates, as it could very well mean that a power armor's beam cannon would be able to bore a hole into a building's wall and wait until the weapon is ready to be fired again, while another powered armor could use a vulcan cannon is tear a hole in a wall with a hailstorm of bullets.

The damage output is the same, but just applied differently; the beam cannon in the above example hints at a stronger ability to penetrate through defenses, though it might hit or totally miss an evading target. The vulcan cannon, on the other hand, won't be able to penetrate as easily (more chances of wearing armor down rather than breaching it) but it may be able to land partial damage (a faction of its many shots as it tracks the target as it fires) on an evading target.

Example of application on existing submission:
The Ketsurui Fleet Yard-built Plumeria-class light gunship would be equipped with...
One primary weapon: the Aetheric Shock Array (Moderate Anti-Starship damage; 3)
Six secondary weapons: positron cannons (light Anti-Starship damage; 2)
Up to thirty-six variable weapon pods (moderate Anti-Mecha damage; 3 {each} )

 

[Fred]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Conjectural thoughts on structural points and defenses (optional and separate from the above submission, but included for the sake of completeness):
We can measures means to harm another in the above grades and ratings to: trying to hurt (1), trying to kill (3), trying to smash into little bits (5). Anti-personnel could have 1 be a pummeling attack, 2 be knifing/clubbing, 3 be a handgun/rifle/sword, 4 be a grenade and 5 be a rocket.

Sort of based on that, my thoughts on how to evaluate how much harm is needed to defeat an entity/vehicle... is based on how many times it can take the most lethal damage in that category. Understandably some humans, some mechas and some ships are tougher than others. Some have armors and some don't.

In the case of ships, which is what I've put the most thought into, I figured that I could measure the smallest ships on the smallest anti-ship damage output I could bring to bear to harm a starship. In the following, like so:

Destroyers, small hulls with starship-grade armor, could require 10 direct hits from a very light anti-starship weapon to be destroyed. Therefore, their hull armor would have a Starship-grade structural value of 10.

Light hulls such as light gunships (Plumerias ) could require 10 direct hits from a light anti-starship weapon, thus making their starship-grade hull armor have a structural value of 20.

A mid-sized vessel like an Irim or my Miharu-overhaul could take 10 hits from a moderate damage anti-starship weapon. Their ship-grade armor would have a structural value of 30.

Larger capital ships like the Ayame and the Takumi could end up taking 10 direct hits from heavy weapons before succumbing, having a structural value of 40.

The big stuff, like Yamatai's Chiharu flagships, could take 10 direct hits of the biggest, baddest weapons around, having 50 structural points.

Infantry and mechas could work the same way, though I doubt a human could take 10 hits from a bazooka. The tougher it gets, the more hits a target could take?

...

In a similar fashion, a GM could use such average values (this is very touch and go for the moment) and use them to determine in what circumstances a ship's hull armor could 'hold up' to weapon's fire and when it'd cave in and suffer hull breaches/system damage. Perhaps 10% of total value? That would mean that Miharu (30 structural points) would have its hull breached if a Plumeria's main cannon (antiship damage 3) struck its hull directly, but could hold off against the Plumerias positron cannons (damage 2) until its structural rating would have dropped to 20 and under.

In the case of energy screens/shields/etc... SARP could go the way of fixed values like there are right now, understandably smaller due to the smaller scale. My personal preference is using a threshold value (how much damage the ship can stop per hit from reaching the ship) and an absorbtion value (the hit points the shield has, which is where the damage it stops would go and subtract from its absorbtion pool). When the absorbtion points of the shield are depleted, the shield drops and the hull is entirely exposed, weapon hits no longer mitigated.

 

[Zack]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Complaining that the DR systems is cumbersome when it has 121 possible interactions (11 armor ratings and 11 weapon ratings) seems like a misrepresentation when you are presenting a system that has a complexity of 324 (3x6 x 3x6) possible interactions.

In addition this weakens smaller units and makes larger units more powerful to the extent of smaller things not being able to hurt larger things. This is not consistent with what viewed IRL and isn't consistent with a rules set that would be interesting for players.

This also reduces the importance of a weapon's ability to penetrate armor, unlike the current system, which is a fairly good representation of armor piercing over armor capability. Also keep in mind that the current system is intended for some common sense to be used in terms of weapon projectile size and the target itself in regards to what gets destroyed. This in turn means that the proposed system is actually less accurate at describing how weapons and armor would interact than the current system.

 

[AoK]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Fred, I read over this article, and I will admit that I understand only the most rudimentary parts of it. So I will not be critiquing it, but rather posing a question that I had brought to me when I thought up the idea of Lycanthromide, as well as some weapons and armor suits for the Kohanians.

"How does this system apply to blunt force trauma damage?"

Something that a lot of people don't think about when designing an armor, at least, is the effect of getting clubbed REALLY hard. For instance, by a rampaging warrior swinging a hammer as hard as they can. I know that the answer will probably be "That wouldn't do anything with our shielding and plating", but could you at least address it, for those of us that rely on BFT, rather than an Aether Shock Cannon?

Thank you.

 

[Fred]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

@Uso:

Let's see...

Anti-personnel: 1 to 5.
Anti-Mecha: 1 to 5.
Anti-Ship: 1 to 5.

So, 15 values with some easy to interpret relationships between each other, 13 actually if you consider that two 5s are worth two 1s in that. Along with that, you get clear distinctions between scales in the bargain.

Anti-personnel is often all but helpless against the average power armor. A single power armor alone can't really do much against a starship unless its properly outfitted to face it. There are, in each of the two lesser categories, ways to go and harm a stronger units and those applications have been seen before in roleplay in about the same spirit for scenarios Wes devised.

What's more, most weapon value in their select categories usually are on the top of the scale because no one wants to be the underdog. Everyone wants to be strong, everyone wants to have weapons that do in the DR 8 to 10 usually, those whom try to be more reasonable are usually shafted and so on. This is an accepted trend of SARP, so, might as well go along with it.

So weapons as I propose them are two things: can it hurt your hull? If so, how much? And that's pretty much a guideline, because it gives a GM still a lot of latitude to interpret damage.

It doesn't stop the GM from taking armor values in consideration after that. Durandium is lighter, but still equal in general resilience to others. Yamataium is heavier but has regenerative quirks. Zesuaium is much stronger for its ability to resist physical trauma, heat and electricity conduction.

What we could argue on is the proposed lethality a vehicle can endure. I'll admit my factor of 10 I used was pretty arbitrary and willingly admit Wes might like his ships more brittle than that (an unshielded Sakura was destroyed in a single hit by a positron cannon once)... but then, that was really just me thinking out loud about a companion piece to this submission.

@AoK:

In regard of starships, those things are typically extremely resistant blunt force trauma on the level of hulls. However, this doesn't stop a credible blunt-force-trauma weapon to be assembled as a suitable weapon of a certain category and then be fired. Delivery has its limitation, but as long as you are dealing with a material that responds accordingly to such attacks (everything except zesuaium) you can get results.

You could go from turreted autocannons being tertiary weapons, to electromagnetic railguns as secondaries, then to increasingly bigger and more powerful mass driver type weaponry. You get mass, you get impact, but the huge limitation of blunt-force-trauma weapons is their delay-to-impact.

Once it hits, it's pretty much up to the GM to decide how much regard he gives it. The numbers are really just an approximation of how much some weapons might hurt compared to others, but the reason I'm using something of a cookie-cutter approach is to leave GMs plenty of room to make their own judgment calls on things.

 

[Zack]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Which as I have stated is both inaccurate as to what is observed IRL and roughly 3x more complex than the current system.

So why do we need a system that is more complex and less accurate at what it is intended to replace?

 

[AoK]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Once again, thank you for addressing my concerns, Fred.

Could you expand upon your response just a little more, however, to also take into account ground troops and PAs? The more I read over this system, the more I am understanding, but for the Kohanians, they are going to be relying on hammer weapons for right now for close up work, while things like you mentioned are designed and worked on for longer ranges and PAs.

So with this scale, how would I show that a Kohanian swinging a battle hammer, would effect a pilot, even if not the armor, negatively? Does that even figure into this system?

That's what I am trying to figure out. How to create something with this, that shows that the Kohanians, and other races like them, can stand up to PAs, even if they have to rely on Ewok style warfare.

 

[Firebrand]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I for one, like this system. It allows for easier understanding by roleplayers(Not Techies), and seperates Starship grade, Armor grade, and Personal grade weapons into easy to understand categories.


Also, since wes is into making SARP a tabletop rpg, this would be much more understandable and easier to roll than the current DR system.

 

[Kai]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I like Fred's DR scale much better, actually. I believe it is much more accurate than ten very general levels like we have now. How are ten levels accurate? There are more than ten ways to hurt something, so I would expect more complexity than that. I like the differentiation between personnel, Mecha, and starship. there is MUCH more accuracy in such a system. sure it's a little more complex, but not very much, and it is quite accurate in my opinion. I personally enjoy using a 100 number system, and think that that is even more accurate than this, but for a simple scale, Fred's works.

I see no faults in it. To me anyway, it is clear to understand. I mean seriously. How the heck is a handgun going to hurt a Mindy? and yet by keeping the current DR scale, that is technically possible.

I say Yes to this scale, it's time we got a more accurate scale.

 

[Orion]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I approve of this system. It's excellent. I'm not sure how it's less accurate than the existing system, from where I stand it looks like it fixes a lot of the accuracy issues...

 

[Fred]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

@AoK:
Well, first of all, I think SARP has a tendency to make melee weapons into a little more than what they should actually be. Technically, a beam cannon should be more powerful than a beam sword, but you often see beam swords slicing through stuff. So, sort of by unspoken default, this gives more of a chance to your blunt weapons.

Secondly, there's GM interpretation that goes along with this, and the roleplayed effort behind an action. I believe this is more flexible than just a set of numbers allow. The fact that an attack of a lesser tier can be pushed up to affect a greater tier shows that some blows can go through, though they'd be the mightiest that category could manage.

After all, what's a rocket really supposed to do? Could that damage on a single unit be somehow reproduced by a sledge-hammer wielding IDSOL? Maybe *shrugs* I think you could easily take advantage of the yamataian power armors on that level thanks to them being flexible and rather thinly-armored. For example, chainmail armor is terrific to block slashes and some pokes, but totally sucks at dealing with blunt weapons. Work around the same way, I'd think.

I could have gone more complex and added multipliers for specific kinds of damage against specific materials, but last time I tried that, people told me it was going overboard in complexity. This time around, it's not there because that's left more flexible to interpretation.

Obviously, you shouldn't expect a sledgehammer-wielding IDSOL to beat a Mindy... but then, he might still not be completely helpless. Make some roleplay out of it, help it be entertaining and cool, and there might be something to be done. After all, people typically can't compare to a D&D red dragon, but the characters in that game somehow manage it through experience, pluck and luck.

Furthermore, another thing to consider is that people are not restrained from only using weaponry in their grade. Nekos in the PNUgen complex wielded shoulder-borne beam cannons that were cabled in a wall and they were hidden behind sandbags while our Mindy armors were trying to get at them. You could have people setting down portable artillery, mines, traps stolen from the enemy, etc...

For primitive warfare against the tech-standards of the setting, your Kohanians probably don't have the odds stacked in their favor, but if they plan things right, they might still be able to manage something. But you knew that already, didn't you?

 

[Soresu]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Didn't we once have this discussion in the past? :| While complexity is good, simplicity is as well since no one has to drag out the calculator every time to figure out if it is going to die, or survive. My main concern is this thing scaring off people from submitting designs for everything from simple shuttles to full-blown flagships and everything in between.

Last time I was very iffy with your suggestion since it was coming close to overboard yes. Now I'm more in favor of it since it is a little more simplistic, and a person can pick it up if they take the time to read. While I am a little more agreeable to it, I'm still not wholly won over. It is a great idea yes, but, what about all the armor materials?

 

[Zakalwe]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I approve of this system. I think it will help escaping from the tech wars.

 

[Wes]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

I like the idea of three scales (my DR revision suggestion had this too), but...

The Ketsurui Fleet Yard-built Plumeria-class light gunship would be equipped with...
One primary weapon: the Aetheric Shock Array (Moderate Anti-Starship damage; 3)
Six secondary weapons: positron cannons (light Anti-Starship damage; 2)
Up to thirty-six variable weapon pods (moderate Anti-Mecha damage; 3 {each} )

Why would you classify a "total annihilation" DR10 weapon as "Moderate Anti-Starship?" There's nothing that hits harder in the SARP than aether shock... The other weapons are the same way. A Plumeria positron cannon is heavy, and an aether pod can obliterate a power armor in one hit.

Revising the system is good, but trying to sneak in weapon nerfs is not.

 

[Fred]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

It's not a weapon nerf, Wes. Here's why:

Moderate damage isn't anything which devalues the strength of the weapon itself, rather than a statement that it's a weapon powerful enough to readily have the power to destroy mid-sized ship in only a couple of uses (depending on how lethal you prefer your SARP to be). It's, in fact, the strongest attack rating a ship-powered directed energy weapon can have because ship-killing aether torpedoes and mines definitely can dish out more harm than the central weapon of a light warship hull can. To say otherwise would not only devalue guided projectile-type weapon, but also kick in the groin any larger starship KFY has.

A beam weapon would saturate with heat hull armor, thus making it explosively change states from solid to liquid to gaseous. You'd get a explosion from that and then a hole. A positron cannon would project anti-particles against the ship's armor, which have the armor touched cancel out the anti-matter, explode in a heat impact, and the result is likely the same large hole/crater in the hull. The Aether shock cannon fires a discharge which on contact will effectively act as a sort of disintegration beam, eating away cleanly at matter while its in effect, also resulting in the same large hole.

So, it's classified as rating 3 because it tries to poke large holes in stuff. Then, it's free to be interpreted. A beam cannon could be significantly less effective against zesuaium, whom doesn't conduct heat. Anti-particles would work against zesuaium on the level of matter annihilation, but the heat impact wouldn't do so much. Aether, though, would just chew through anything including zesuaium. That's where the weapon type shines, through interpretation regarding materials (estimates done by the GM) rather than give the weapon the best, absolutely highest rating possible just because its aether.

If that was the case, the Mindy's saber-rifle could destroy Chiharu flagships just as well as the Plumeria can. But it can't. The whole point is to bring an appropriate sense of scale to things, not weaken what was there before.

With the DR system, you left no room for torpedoes and mines to outperform as they should have had. It's not like they could be given the values of DR 12 and 15 for the ship killer category. The scale I propose does allow it, though, which is really one of the main differences between the two.

 

[Zack]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

A laser imparts thermal energy to a target so once an armor is has a vaporization point higher than the amount of energy the system (armor + laser) has when in equilibrium in space the laser is entirely defeated and can not destroy the target armor because it is too massive/good at radiating/whatever.

A anti-matter weapon will directly nullify a bit of mass and release a large explosion at the same time. It will always do some damage to armor but armor can be strong enough to survive the blast and ultimately defeat the round.

An aether weapon like the shock cannon fires a scalar burst. This does no damage to armor and passes harmlessly through it. The scalar burst does however release a massive amount of energy regardless of how strong the armor is. As such no physical armor can defeat such an attack as its physical properties generally have no bearing on how survivable it is. The exception of course is DR 10 armor, zesu, which has a variety of special properties but is ultimately only a stop everything which is on par with a kill everything.

Damage raitings for these items are roughly 1-8ish, 7+ and 10 respectively and describe their interaction with armor well enough to be used for back of the envelope style calculations while not interfering with the post you are trying to write.


Fred's system overcomplicates this and misrepresents weapon strengths. To make my first point we already have one person confused by this system in his first post about it. To make my second point an aeither weapon would be limited in destructive capability based on how much power is fed to it. As such a ship with a much larger power source and power bandwidth will always be able to make a more powerful energy release than a torpedo using a similar weapon which would have a smaller power source.

Fred also wants to make the case that a mindy's DR 10 rifle is blowing up flagships as effectively as the gunship's main weapon. This is also not the case because as both weapons are capable of penetrating armor at the same rate as both weapons put out exactly the same amount of energy per small unit of size, one is a rifle and one covers a 45 degree arc. GMs already know well enough which one deals more damage to a ship's innards. This system is supposed to include GM discretion in a similar way so it does not solve the problem that was brought up in the previous post in the first place.

So saying that a torpedoes or a mine definitely does more harm than a main gun style weapon is inaccurate.

 

[Fred]

Re: Fred's revision on the DR system

Then I'm everybit as stupid as Uso subtly implies.

Of course, RP action doesn't follow specs, but I'm sure Uso has something to reply even to that about how he's so much better than everyone else again.

Uso, don't bother arguing. I'm not going to argue with you - I've not the time to waste. I'm posting this in light of a discussion with Wes. Don't flatter yourself overmuch.

So...

Aether as a weapon cannot be quantified in numbers. It'll simply vaporize anything it comes into contact with. There are no decent defenses against it, except plotship armor (supposedly plotship shields can do something about it).

A Plumeria can fire its weapon and destroy another ship that's easily 50 times as big as it is (chiharu flagship? Easy.). Aether weapons were DR 10, so they entirely eliminate zesuaium too which is also DR 10. result? 10 - 10 = 0.

So, it's a weapon type that destroys whatever it comes into contact with. To the point of going to the Mindy aether rifle being able to do the same.

I finally understand why aetheric weapons are hated by so many people and pretty much join that camp. It's something that'd give me a cheap win if I used it, something Tom couldn't fix if the ship was hit by it since it'd spell its instant vaporization (and maybe that is too generous a term - there wouldn't be any vapor) and as a powersources it's really obscure in its working. Basically, players can't relate or interact effectively with it, which makes it overpowered and worthless in my eyes.

And, of course, if torpedoes and mines don't have any redeeming values in terms of striking power despite their drawbacks/balancing points, then it makes the top half of the ship scale something 'inaccurate', to quote someone - despite it making a whole lot of sense to others techies I've talked to in the past year.

Since Wes' favored tool because something at the top of the food chain again, it's going to create the same fiasco the speed reduction was. People aren't going to balance and are going to the top values again, resulting in the very same thing as most weapons in the setting being DR 8 to 10 - because no one wants to be the underdog and most especially because Wes does it.

Despite positive member input, if this is so fatally flawed due to quirks unique to the technologies of this setting, then this topic no longer deserves any discussion; this shouldn't be approved as its not representative of how SARP sadly is.