Heavy Infantry Plasma Rifle

Wasn't it reviewed already with its original stats? If it were retroactively changed without prior notice or consent once approved, that's pretty sketchy and questionable. Was there any notification to the change at all? I looked at the revisions and saw 'Nerfed' on there by Wes. And at least one to two revision restorations by Kai followed by another change by Wes.

The issue is that under the current damage system, personnel weapons can only do personnel-scale damage; the damage listed exceeded that so it was nerfed down to fit the rules.

This sounds like a "let the stats say one thing and the RP say another"-issue.

The thing is, Doshii, was that this rifle was APPROVED with ADR 5 damage. It was roleplayed in the setting WITH that kind of damage, meaning it was roleplayed as it was approved.

With the damage being nerfed down, the rifle 'has' become rather useless for what it was originally built for (not to mention some of hte stats now don't reflect it's damage output)

From my understanding, no one communicated with Kai or Cadet prior to this change.. and it has generated quite a bit of animosity sense.

The change-without-notice is bad. However, I submit a response to the overall issue of "nerfing" —

Who cares?

Players used it a certain way, with a trusted GM watching. The GM must have approved of the use.

While passers-by might see something on the wiki that appears weak if they see only the damage rating, they could read the fluff text of the entry to understand what more the weapon can do, or was meant to do.

I think what we've called "fluff text" actually carries more weight and use in roleplay than any DR. In that text is the creator's true intent, and where players and GMs should find the necessary context about the weapon.

The rifle is, more accurately, not meant to be a 'personnel' type firearm.

When it was created, the weapon was envisioned as an 'armor scale' firearm that had protective provisions for unarmored individuals, yet was cheapened and watered down to increase ease of production and proliferation at several other costs. Despite these changes however, its sole purpose was to serve as a dedicated anti-armor weapon, much like AT-4s, Carl Gustavs, RPG-7s and so forth. As a result, it falls into the same category of weapon, considering its very lengthy cooldown time, incredibly large, visible muzzle blast, and heavy weight.

The DR system was supposed to be representative of how things perform in roleplay, not dictate how roleplay goes. Right now however, the DR imposed on this rifle is not representative of how the weapon performs, and on top of that, fails to dictate the rifle's behavior, as it has already been used In Character following its original stats.

@Doshii_Juni:

In all honesty, I believe we should all care - the DR system is being used to dictate how roleplay goes, rather than serve as a general guideline as to how it actually does go In Character. But on top of that, since it is being used to dictate, it also means that our characters have no good, effective means to fight off armors should they be caught outside of theirs. After all, just how affective is weapon, or an RPG with a large shaped charge now? ADR 1? That's as good as the NSP - a pistol.

And, more importantly for Game Masters, it also happens to mean we can't have the occasional, cheap cannon fodder enemy wield something more dangerous to our characters either - in videogames, we always have the reaction of, "ARR PEE GEE!" or "SNIPER!" to punctuate the usual enemies and give variety to what we face.

Without those, the selection we get to choose from when figuring out what to toss at our players or to our players to use, is more limited, and that much more bland and boring as a result.

I think you misunderstand me, Cadette.

The DR system doesn't dictate how things go in RP. The GM does. How effective are any of the weapons you mentioned? As effective as the GM wants them to be, or as effective as the players can convince that GM they are.

Lemme say it this way: DR effectively doesn't mean anything outside PvP. It never was supposed to, and it still doesn't. We include it as a requirement for submissions so we all supposedly have some idea of a weapon's power, but in the end it means little.

If a GM wants to use an RPG as a threat, and give players a useful means of countering it, that GM needs to actually do that. Don't lean on the DR to find such a weapon — use that imagination. The selection of weapons is as broad as the GM and players make it.

Thanks Doshii

Right now, the way I see it, if the DR system doesn't tell roleplay what to do, nor tell players how roleplay does 'typically' go IC when they read it. For all intents and purposes, it's completely and utterly useless junk because it does absolutely and utterly nothing. With the Hyper in particular, it does neither - it's already been used In-Character by now, so the rating of ADR 1 not only fails to dictate how the weapon performs In-Character, but it also fails to show what it's supposed to do In-Character.

These are two very different possible ways for the DR system to work, and it failed both. It's not a general guideline, and it's not a rule.

That's why I'm asking for some degree of flexibility in terms of the Damage Rating system, and in specific, for dedicated Anti-Armor weapons such as these. I'm not asking for Power Armor to hold Anti-Ship weapons here. Things like hand held rocket launchers, anti-armor rifles and even explosives like plasma grenades trade off a lot to just hurt power armor. They're big, they're cumbersome, they're easy to spot, and some even require to be in hand throwing distance. And most of them don't have easy to carry ammo either.

And comparing Anti-Armor Personnel Weapons to Armor Weapons proper such as the LASR? Everyone will notice the LASR's got plenty of ammo. That it doesn't stand out like a sore thumb. That the thing is easy to handle and maneuver. But, there's a catch - infantry can't use them. Either such weapons simply weigh too much, or have too heavy a kick. It's a balanced tradeoff in terms of performance vs ease of use. Personnel Anti-Armor weapons don't perform well, but are easy to use. Armor Weapons aren't easy to use and require a suit, but perform well.

That's how it should be, and most of all? It makes sense.

So again, please let there be some deal of flexibility to the DR system - it would better reflect how things go In Character, where we all Roleplay.