Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating Revision

[Eistheid]

Submission Type: Narrative driven damage guidelines.
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision

Notes: Much of default the form doesn't really apply since this isn't a typical setting submission. I hope you don't mind me removing those components.

This is probably going to take some work to get finalized. I will however be more than happy to fill in blanks and update this as we go along. Additionally post-approval I'll be happy to update old DR values as needed, likely including both systems for a while to smooth over the transition.

A final note, the article will probably need to be moved to a new page location as I believe the current one is just WIP storage.

As has been determined the final call of what is done comes down to GM fiat. As such it is best to view this as intended: A set of guidelines to help players and GMs understand the effects of what they're working with rather than hard rules that must be adhered to.

 

[CadetNewb]

Sorry @Fred - there was just too much happening at once. Now that it's the weekend, I can more reliably say something.

Concerning the LASR, I would say that it would take a decent burst to incapacitate or kill the latest model of Mindy 2 - perhaps a second of sustained fire. It should probably then be moved to Class 6, otherwise, it will kill the Mindy far too quickly. Maybe even Class 5 to be honest. Also, you're correct that the HPAR is placed too high - far too high - on the chart right now, and that it can and should be moved down. I was more worried about making system itself ready, and wasn't concerned about item placement quite yet. With that weapon in particular, it will still take a good burst to the center of mass to take down a Hostile without shields, so Class 7 is much better. The Hostile is meant to be like a brick in how tough it is.

There are other weapons that I feel that are out of place, but unless you feel we're ready for that commentary, I'll keep quiet on that so we can focus on the core mechanics first.

Originally, I preferred having a chart that was damage done over time, and still do. The reason for that was that the advanced tech of the setting made most things a lot more 'meaty' than things were today, so that they sponged up several more shots. Naturally, the problem with that, is how single shot weapons such as bolt actions and such factor in. I am ok with the single shot system you prefer as well; it just looks a bit odd, since normally powerful weapons are being described by what only one shot can do.

 

[Eistheid]

While I have to admit that I don't have the IC experience with the weapons systems involved to accurately say where they should go on the table.. However in the old thread I have previously stated my stance on how things should work, and honestly I am still of the opinion that class should be determined by what the weapon can under normal (not special) circumstances kill in one hit. While the first of those three links is a little confusing, after I get past the first part I move on to mentioning how weapons still remain effective even below the class of a target, and given that most weapons have a rate of greater than 500 rounds per minute I honestly don't think that it should be an issue that a single shot isn't an instant kill on heavier targets.

We discussed the LASR in the old thread quite a bit, and Doshii, as well as Wes, mentioned that it had lacklustre performance requiring it to chew through PA rather than reliably down them. To this end everyone was in favor of dropping it into the high end of the anti-personnel section. Especially since it was determined that the primary selling point of the LASR was that it would do minimal damage to the interior of a friendly ship unlike the Daisy Plasma Rifle, and the ASBR. To this end if you wanted higher per shot damage you could always use a heftier weapon... Which is more or less how things work irl last I checked.

In the old thread @CadetNewb also mentioned that they did not feel that the HPAR was a weapon that was prone to instant kills on heavy targets, instead taking a burst to punch through something at centre mass. However given that the HPAR is a heavier weapon it was determined that a good place for it was in the light/mid PA range.

I guess when it comes down to it I feel that I can't quite agree with Cadet, as I much prefer a per shot system rather than damage over time. I like to know that if I have a single round left in my weapon, what my options are. I can easily extrapolate in either direction what a single round will do, and thus bottoming out a magazine will likely have a much higher effect on the target, where a single round just might not cut it against larger foes. On the other hand spraying a crowd of civilians with most PA or greater weaponry is going to make postmortem identification difficult.

Additionally, I feel that judging the system on the effects of a single round, and then extrapolating based on rate of fire makes it easier for people to tell what will happen. Since if they can imagine that a single shot will total a car for example, they can assume that a hail of rounds will be much more effective.

Beyond this it also cuts out the ambiguity of the effects of a single shot, at least from my perspective. Since if something tells me that 1000 rounds over the course of half a minute will kill a target, what happens if I just shoot someone with one?

I'm probably rambling again at this point, so sorry for that.

 

[CadetNewb]

It's not rambling, I can say that. A thought; what if the system included single shot effects and per/second/over time effects of a weapon as well? It would be more time consuming to do, but besides that, what other effects would it have, both negative and positive?

 

[Eistheid]

I suppose my question would become; why does it need to be a part of the system? Couldn't that be included in the fluff of the weapon article?

 

[CadetNewb]

It could, but it goes back to the old argument Fred and I have been making. To have the damage over time integrated into the DR system is more convenient and gives a quicker, better idea of what the weapon can do, but at the same time, may also lead to less emphasis on actually reading and taking in the article itself as it was likely meant to by the creator. It's essentially a balancing act, and honestly, not always an easy one. Though I would prefer having the DoT value there in the table, I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I don't mind the single-shot damage as it is right now either, but that too has its own caveats.

 

[Eistheid]

How is it more convenient to have to look at the DR page, than to read on the weapon article how the weapon is intended to be used?

Forgive me if I'm being a little dense, but I would imagine that it would be less navigation, and in total less reading if DoT was handled on a weapon's page.

In my opinion if I see that a weapon like the LASR is say Class 5 (or in the original version Class 3) but it is equipped as a PA's main weapon, I don't want to have to navigate to the DR page to know what the effective DoT will be. I'd much rather that the article explain that the weapon is for use around friendly, or valuable assets such as the inside of a starship where heavier hitting alternatives would cause too much collateral, or be overkill for the application. If the article goes on to say that sustained fire within a time frame is effective at clearing enemies, with the implication that more heavily armored targets will take more punishment then I think that would work just fine.

Basically if a weapon needs to empty it's magazine to chew through a target, I feel that would fit better in the weapon's dedicated fluff, than on a table for what is supposed to be a minimal guideline rather than a series of mechanics for determining combat.

The DR system is to my understanding intended to give Players and GMs guidelines for what they can expect their weapon's to do at a glance without having to refer to it regularly. To this end it would make more sense to me if all it provided was a frame of reference as to the basic lethality of the weapon, which was then elaborated upon within the fluff of the weapon itself.

After all when you go to read up on weapons you won't go to the DR page first. You'll go to the weapon. Further, once you learn the basics such as, "A Class 7 weapon is a serious threat to a Mindy" when you see a weapon listed as Class 7, you can think to yourself, "This is something that at its most basic will threaten a Mindy, and other PA similar to it." If you then go on to read that it has a huge ROF, you can then adjust to know that the weapon is not only dangerous, but potentially lethal if you get caught by it even briefly making it something to avoid.

Going back to the old example of SMGs and Pistols, both might fire the same ammunition type, and have similar effects on armor, but the SMG is notably more dangerous in its application. It doesn't make it an anti-armor weapon, just a more dangerous anti-personnel weapon.

 

[CadetNewb]

Not quite what I had in mind. I was thinking that a weapon would have both its single shot and a DoT damage equivalency. Say a gun does Class 5 damage per-shot, but due to its rate of fire, is also rated at Class 7 damage in 1 second. The weapon would have to be reviewed and have both damage types approved, and beyond looking at the DR chart to know what Class deals with what, that should (hopefully) be it. Basically, we'd see Class 5 (Single Shot)/Class 7 (1 Second) or something on the weapon's own page.

 

[Aendri]

I'm with Eistheid on this one. That's just adding even more to keep track of, when it's something that doesn't really fit anyway. Two weapons firing the same round, at the same speed, should have about the same damage. But RoF makes all the difference, and that's something that doesn't mean anything to the up front lethality of the weapon. Just it's effective use.

The only way DoT would make sense to be included at all to me would be to make a whole second table, and that's just going way overboard again. Keeping this a per-shot chart keeps it simple and easy to interpret, and the weapon provides all of the modifiers to that initial information on its own page.

 

[CadetNewb]

Alright, if that's the case, how many shots will it usually take to bump a weapon up a class or two in terms of equivalency? Right now, it looks like it would take four rounds for a weapon that's two Classes below to cancel that out and be on equal grounds, going off the rough percentages.

 

[Aendri]

If we're using this table, don't think of it in multiple rounds.

The logic you're using, says that 4 rounds (each about 25% effective) should just about even with something two levels above, but that's misunderstanding the logic behind this table. You're still thinking in game terms, not in writing terms. That's a lethality measure, not a percentage of health, or effectiveness, or anything like that. That number is "Assuming I hit in the right place, this round has X% chance of killing what I'm shooting at". So being two tiers below means you have a much lower chance of being able to pull off that headshot, just because of a the class difference. You can still kill them by getting lucky, or you can just hose them down with fire, and eventually wear them down, but compared to the weapon two tiers higher, which has a solid chance of just straight out killing the target with a clean hit, it's going to be much less effective.

To put it another way, you can wing someone 4 times without ever coming close to killing them, but one shot to center mass can put them down, from the same weapon. That's how you have to think of this system.

You can't try to think of this system as an additive or multiplicative system. It's comparative, but they're not directly equivalent.

 

[CadetNewb]

Screw it. I'm not going to paraphrase or whatever. I'll just leave the copy-pasta here, and have it spoilered to save space.

Spoiler

[19:11] Aendri Real men go for the four way.
[19:13] CadetNewb lol
[19:14] Aendri Your pelvis may not survive, but your name will be remembered by men everywhere forever.
[19:19] CadetNewb nods in solemn agreement.
[19:24] Li
[19:26] Semjax Then he'd have to survive the lecture and physical examination Rachael would give himm when he returned. Poooor Richard
[19:36] Li We've gotta buy kelly some "After Market parts"
[19:38] CadetNewb lol
[19:50] Aendri Oh, hell.
[19:50] Aendri Cadet.
[19:51] CadetNewb ?
[19:51] Aendri I just realized, there's a really, really easy way to explain the difference between how you're thinking of the system, and how it's meant to work, and I completely missed it.
[19:51] CadetNewb Please.
[19:51] CadetNewb It sometimes gives me headaches.
[19:51] Aendri You're thinking of this like WoT. You hit someone enough times, and eventually, they go down.
[19:51] Aendri Think of it more like WT.
[19:52] Aendri This is your chance to get that instant killshot, not your damage percentage.
[19:52] Aendri Under this system, there are no health bars to whittle down, or anything like that. You either do your damage effectively, or you don't.
[19:52] CadetNewb What about the integrity of the armor plate itself?
[19:53] Aendri That's what the armor's class is.
[19:53] CadetNewb That's actually something that bothered me in WT.
[19:53] Li A 'fatal' shot to armor is a shot that would compromise it if it hit squarely.
[19:53] Aendri There's just no good way to represent that numerically.
[19:53] CadetNewb Yeah, but we still need a rough ballpark, don't we?
[19:53] Aendri Li, that's not what he's getting at.
[19:54] Aendri Though I read it that way too.
[19:54] Aendri Cadet, the best way to think of it is that when armor is compromised, it's like you're shooting at something much lower classed than it originally way.
[19:54] Aendri If you do enough damage to a plate of armor, eventually, it stops operating at that class 7 level.
[19:55] Aendri But that's something that HAS to be on the GM side of things, or on the armor article.
[19:55] Aendri There honestly just isn't a good way to represent something like that numerically, because it's a very, very complex equation to get there.
[19:57] Aendri But, as a GM, you could, for example, decide that a piece of armor on a PA has just been hit too many times, and it's beginning to fail. So a shot to anything else on the PA would still be it's original class, but say you decide someone gets lucky and hits the weak plate. You could go ahead and treat it like it's a class or two lower to give you an idea of how effective the shot should
[19:57] Aendri be.
[19:58] Aendri So, all of the sudden, the LASR rounds that have just been bouncing off and ricocheting in random directions start punching through the plate. The rest of the armor is still intact, but now the player knows their armor's compromised in a very, very real way.
[19:58] CadetNewb Did we include that rational in the DR table? Without, it may leave people guessing.
[19:58] Aendri I suppose we can include that. It's implied pretty plainly, but...
[19:59] Aendri That's the whole point. This table is supposed to be a core, "ideal" conditions guide. Everything outside of that comes down to GM caveat.
[19:59] Aendri So situations like failing armor, or a weapon hitting harder than normal would be, well. Effectively houseruled by the GM.
[20:03] CadetNewb Yeah, but we might as well give examples of what a GM can do.
[20:03] CadetNewb It gives perspective, and for new GMs, a good starting point.
[20:03] Aendri Go ahead and suggest it. Feel free to copy this over to Eistheid, since this is just me winging it here based on my understanding.

 

[Eistheid]

It might take me a few days, but I could incorporate this sort of information into the article to better explain the relationship of the damage scaling, and armor.

When doing this I'd also probably revise the table using @Fred's musings to address the larger number of classes to try and maintain the overlap of effectiveness between sections and maintain the threat of smaller weapons to heavier targets.

 

[Koenig808]

Also, you're correct that the HPAR is placed too high - far too high - on the chart right now, and that it can and should be moved down

With all due respect to the parties involved, they are both completely incorrect in their approximation of where the HPAR stands.

Particularly with respect to the fact in its wiki sheet, where it is designated as an anti-armor weapon, previously ADR4 in the "Heavy" class under the old DR system and not ADR 5 like other weapons such as the Aether Beam Sabre Rifle.

Bringing it down to Class 7 is not a consequence of this new system but a complete downgrade.

Bringing it to Class 7 would categorize it as "Light Anti Armor" versus its previously established placement in the old system as a "Heavy" weapon at ADR4.

An effort such as this would not reflect a smooth transition from the old DR system to the new one - whereas in the old DR system the HPAR was a close second to one of the more powerful primary weapons fielded by a nation such as Yamatai, but never as far back as it's being discussed currently.

Furthermore the key operative words used in objections to where the HPAR stands is "a well placed burst" - which implies the user has time to aim properly, that the user is not experiencing any sort of stress under fire, that the projectiles group tight enough to do enough damage, and that the target is stationary. These are both extremely unlikely circumstances that should not be relied upon for the need to grossly downgrade a weapon.

Furthermore burst fire traditionally is a feature to produce a responsible volume of fire by a user to increase hit probability and suppression - with the added benefit of several rounds hitting on target at once being an unlikely but acceptable afterthought. As such the arguments regarding ROF are unfounded due to how unlikely it is that a full burst will actually make its mark.

I absolutely will not accept the HPAR being at anything less than Class 9. Any sort of effort to downgrade this piece of tech grossly misrepresents the original purpose of the HPAR. I will block any attempts to resubmit this tech article with a DR of less than what is appropriate for a heavy anti armor rifle such as the HPAR, which I will again clarify as being Class 9 in the proposed revision.

 

[Fred]

Koenig, you're being needlessly heavyhanded.

You don't have to come in strong to this degree. Stop with the ultimatums already; we've got a climate of cooperation going on in this thread at the moment and I think it's to everyone's interest - including yours, that we keep it going. It's like you don't expect to be listened to and lay it thick as much as possible.

This said, it's cool man. What you're saying doesn't come as a surprise to me. It's actually the first thing that occured to me as possibly 'not making the cut'.

There's a few ways to address the problem. One is actually to reduce the HPAR's performance in the table to somwhere around "Light Anti-Armor" - that's 2 steps down. That's the behavior I intended for the system, but then again... it's my estimation that no Nepleslian-leaning GM/tech submitter wants to see the primary weapon of a purported 'heavy power armor' be termed as 'light anti-armor' even with the caveat of its firing rate crossing the difference.

Another would be to reduce the inherent lethality of the weapons. To me, it made sense that people would make the weapons with a label intended to say "this kill this kind of thing", but it doesn't feel like SARP as a community is ready for that leap. It'd probably be a narrative step down from the "can kill in one hit" to "can be used to efficiently defeat the target"

The third solution I portrayed would be a return to the "DPS per time interval" format. Meaning it'd be implied that a burst-fire from an HPAR could kill an unshielded Hostile with a few well-placed hits. Same for the LASR being able to kill a Mindy while subjecting to a prolongued stream of bullets; whereas the slower sniper-version of the LASR - due to its lower rate of fire - would be implied as greater penetrative power per single hit.

I said all of this already. We're on the same page. We're working on it. There's no need of the blockade tactic, we get it already. Loud and clear. This said, the feedback you've given - barring the unneccessary last sentence - is all good feedback. Thanks for chipping in: it was the sort of feedback I hoped to get throughout last week.

 

[OsakanOne]

Aaaand this is why I'm working on gear, not weapons.

 

[CadetNewb]

I'm very unhappy right now. Very unhappy. What they're suggesting basically takes a wrecking ball to my plot, which I put a lot of effort into despite all the utter shit going on in real life. I left out where it degenerated to me swearing, but everything else is there.

Spoiler

[19:51] Aendri Kampfker, in this case, it was people giving Fred bad info.
[19:51] CadetNewb Look, that wasn't the intent, and I was trying to give him proper info to work with.
[19:51] Kampfker I know you had no intention to do any harm to us. The idea started with him alone.
[19:51] Aendri He's been told that the ADR4 was only a "Burst" damage, not a single shot. Since the old system was supposedly "Damage in a period" not "Damage per shot"
[19:52] Sham Oh, I could draw a StuG III with gold chains or something.
[19:52] Kampfker Who told him that?
[19:52] CadetNewb So what is it - the old damage system is single shot?
[19:52] Kalshion|Kyle I can see Kampy again!
[19:52] Aendri I'm honestly not sure, Kampf.
[19:52] Aendri No, Cadet.
[19:52] Kampfker Unless otherwise noted, yes.
[19:52] Aendri The old system was basically "Damage in 10 seconds".
[19:53] Aendri Under the new system, it's per shot, and that means a lot of weapons will be weird, because people had no fucking idea what was going on with the old system.
[19:53] Aendri Some old weapons were done as single shot, some were done as burst.
[19:53] FoxtrotActualActual > in 10 seconds
[19:53] FoxtrotActualActual ayy lmao
[19:53] Aendri And it's not clear which is which.
[19:53] Aendri Right, Fox?
[19:53] CadetNewb Yeah, that's my thought exactly. And because of that, the new DR for the HPAR isn't off.
[19:53] Aendri There's a reason I prefer the new per shot system.
[19:53] FoxtrotActualActual i'd lean towards it if you said one.
[19:53] Aendri Cadet, it's still off.
[19:53] Kampfker It absolutely is.
[19:53] CadetNewb Well darn.
[19:54] CadetNewb What do you think it should be?
[19:54] Kampfker The HPAR is not on par with a light anti armor weapon.
[19:54] Kampfker It should stay at 9.
[19:54] Aendri Kampfer is dead on in that it should be a CR9.
[19:54] FoxtrotActualActual However, I'm inclined in not believing that something shooting kinetically formed penetrators is "Light Anti Armor"
[19:54] Aendri It's the Nep version of the ABSR, basically, Cadet.
[19:54] CadetNewb ABSR?
[19:54] Kampfker Actually let me rephrase that; it will stay at 9.
[19:54] Aendri Aether Beam Saber Rifle.
[19:55] Jimmy eh, half of SARP's problems is that it doesn't recognize the difference between penetration and damage.
[19:55] Aendri The HPAR is supposed to hit hard as shit.
[19:55] CadetNewb Wait. So you're telling me that one shot out of the HPAR will go clean through a Hostile's armor?
[19:55] Kampfker Fred can piss on himself all he wants about me being heavy handed and drawing ultimatums, but he is the one that initially took his dick out to piss on us.
[19:55] Aendri Unshielded? You bet, Cadet.
[19:55] Aendri The HPAR is a HEAVY armor weapon. It's meant to put Rippers down in a hurry.
[19:55] Kampfker We're effectively using battle rifles as our main rifle.
[19:56] -->| FoxtrotActual ([email protected]) has joined #SARPFree
[19:56] Kampfker And until Yamatai gets rid of the ASBR any notions of "It's too powerful as a main infantry gun" are totally moot.
[19:56] CadetNewb That's not like using a G3 or FAL instead of an M4 - what you're saying is that it's an M2 Browning.
[19:56] Aendri I'm trying to think of a good modern comparison.
[19:56] Kampfker It's absolutely like using a G3 or FAL.
[19:56] CadetNewb Hell no.
[19:56] Kampfker Yes, it is.
[19:56] Aendri It's like a heavy, 7.62 DMR/BAttle Rifle, Cadet.
[19:56] CadetNewb I'll be upfront Kampfker Aendri - that's shit for RP.
[19:57] CadetNewb The insta-gib version you guys are telling me
[19:57] FoxtrotActual It's too OP for Nepleslia Kampfker
[19:57] Aendri If it hits it's target without shielding, that target is GOING DOWN.
[19:57] Aendri That's how it's always been meant to be.
[19:57] CadetNewb Shields are worth only one more hit though.
[19:57] CadetNewb So with shields, it'll take two.
[19:57] Kampfker Yep.
[19:57] Aendri When you consider that the only people Nepleslia has fought any time recently are Yamatai and the NMX, Cadet?
[19:57] Eistheid Three actually.
[19:58] CadetNewb You don't see what's wrong with this?
[19:58] Aendri When you're dealing with Zesu armor and heavy shielding, you need something that hits hard.
[19:58] Kampfker A G3 will not initially penetrate body armor, but that next hit is going to fuck the soldier up wearing it.
[19:58] Aendri Again, Cadet, it comes down to matching what is already deployed.
[19:59] Aendri Look at the heavy rifles for Yamatai and the NMX.
[19:59] |<-- FoxtrotActualActual has left gaia.sorcery.net (Ping timeout: 121 seconds)
[19:59] Aendri And then say this rifle, which is a step below them, is too powerful.
[19:59] FoxtrotActual Plus it's not even plasma
[19:59] FoxtrotActual so it will do shit to Zesu
[19:59] FoxtrotActual Reducing it to Light Anti-Armor chops off DIoNs effectiveness at the knee
[20:00] CadetNewb You're tossing rate of fire out the window though.
[20:00] Kampfker ROF doesn't matter to that much of a degree.
[20:00] Kampfker Not enough to justify moving it down.
[20:00] Aendri This system literally doesn't give a fuck what the rate of fire is, Cadet.
[20:00] Eistheid Aendri: I wouldn't go that far.
[20:00] Aendri Under this system, all that is tracked, is the initial single shot damage. Anything past there is flavor writing.
[20:01] Kampfker And my question is this: What's wrong with us having a Class 9 weapon?
[20:01] Li It should be noted that the HPAR isn't nepleslias only rifle. They do have a more 'average' power one. But the HPAR is supposed to be theri heavy hitter weapon
[20:01] Kampfker Exactly
[20:01] Aendri The HPAR is their "load for bear" weapon.
[20:01] Eistheid https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=nepleslia:light_coil_autocannon < Nepleslia's LASR equivalent?
[20:01] Kampfker Essentially, yes.
[20:01] Aendri Just like the aether beams saber rifle.
[20:01] CadetNewb Yes, it's supposed to be our heavy assault rifle, but this isn't that. This is overkill to the point of stupid.
[20:01] Kampfker Even if it was, which it isn't.
[20:02] Kampfker What's wrong with us having a powerful service rifle?
[20:02] Li So is the ASBR Cadet <.< and the 50mm sholder canon
[20:02] Aendri Again, Cadet, when you cripple the other factions to match, you'll have a better argument.
[20:03] Aendri But as it is, you're arguing that the HPAR can't be a step weaker than what's already out there that compares.
[20:03] FoxtrotActual Isn't it already a class lower than the ABSR in the current system anyway?
[20:03] Kampfker It is.
[20:03] Aendri Yes.
[20:03] Kampfker Which is where it stood pre-revision.
[20:03] Aendri ABSR is ADR5, HPAR is ADR4.
[20:04] FoxtrotActual so the ABSR is Class 10 and the HPAR is Class 9, pending to be class 7?
[20:04] FoxtrotActual Somehow, that doesn't seem like a good conversion.
[20:04] Kampfker Pending nothing, it's staying Class 9.
[20:04] Aendri In this system, it would be 10 and 9.
[20:04] Aendri Which again, is reasonable and makes sense.
[20:04] FoxtrotActual Yeah, hard to see why it should be Class 7
[20:05] Aendri Especially since the ABSR in sabre mode is fucking class 15.
[20:05] CadetNewb That's the ABSR's beam mode though - the ultra-heavy, every 15 seconds only mode.
[20:05] CadetNewb The standard automatic fire mode isn't even listed.
[20:05] Eistheid Aendri: The saber is meant for sawwing into starship hulls, which is why it's there.
[20:05] CadetNewb Proper melee weapons are going to be really high, but that's besides the point.
[20:06] Kampfker Let me just make this simple.
[20:06] Aendri I'm just trying to clarify it, Eis.
[20:06] Kampfker The HPAR won't be moved from Class 9.
[20:06] -->| FoxtrotActualActual ([email protected]) has joined #SARPFree
[20:06] Kampfker I'll deny any re-submission of the article that reflects a change from Class 9.
[20:06] Aendri You can't say a class 9 weapon is too powerful, when the other major faction has a weapon that starts at class 10, and goes up to 15.
[20:06] Eistheid As for the ASBR, it has always been ADR 5, even in pulse mode. The beam mode just makes it easier to hit stuff.
[20:06] Li Think of it this way Cadet, if the HPAR becomes 7, where is the LCA supposed to go? Which acutally is the same strenght as the LSAR?
[20:06] Aendri ^this
[20:06] FoxtrotActualActual Wow, that's literally why I wanted more classes
[20:07] FoxtrotActualActual Because you'd have a bunch of weapons that previously were of different strengths in the same class
[20:07] Aendri Except, that shouldn't be happening.
[20:07] Aendri And isn't.
[20:07] Aendri Because moving the HPAR to 7 is silly.
[20:08] Centurion And Green AOP rounds need to move higher I think.
[20:08] CadetNewb Ugh. I just don't have time for this shit right now.
[20:08] CadetNewb I seriously don't.
[20:08] Kampfker That's fine. The HPAR stays at Class 9.
[20:08] Aendri Then let Eistheid handle it?
[20:08] Aendri He was doing just fine anyway.
[20:08] Kampfker I'm making that call as the Faction Manager.
[20:08] Centurion Because I would think a gun that fires a small tactical nuke would rate at being the same damage level as the text says a small tactical nuke.
[20:09] CadetNewb Like hell it is - I can't have the standard issue gun cheesing everything too quick as a GM.
[20:09] Kampfker It is, Cadet.
[20:09] FoxtrotActualActual When the bad guy's standard issue cheeses it a step faster?
[20:09] Li Cadet
[20:09] Li remember
[20:09] Kampfker Because determining that is not up to you.
[20:09] Li GMs are allwoed to interpert weapons effectiveness on their own
[20:09] Kampfker I don't mind you offering stuff as support, but you do not make overarching statements about faction tech on your own.
[20:09] Aendri Then don't issue that as the standard?
[20:10] Aendri Use the smaller gun as the standard.
[20:10] Li You shouldn't be trying to put the HPAR in a DR slot so that it's usable in your plot. You should just make it when it's in yoru plot as effective as you need
[20:10] Aendri Again, the HPAR is based on the whole "fighting Rippers and Ravagers" situation.
[20:10] Aendri If you're not fighting super heavy armors and mecha, you don't need the HPAR as much.
[20:10] CadetNewb I've been using the HPAR as a standard issue rifle.
[20:10] Kampfker If you have a problem where the HPAR is, just restrict your players to LCAs.
[20:10] Li ANd yes there is the LCA which is also technically standard issue
[20:11] Aendri Then you've been using it wrong.
[20:11] Kampfker No, he's using it right.
[20:11] Kampfker That is our standard issue rifle.
[20:11] Kampfker And it is at Class 9.
[20:11] CadetNewb The pile of shit Sigma made?
[20:11] Kampfker Just as the LCA is also standard issue and is at LCA.
[20:11] Aendri But he's been representing it wrong in the plot, Kampfker, which is what I'm saying.
[20:11] Kampfker Yes, Cadet.
[20:11] Aendri Just becaue you've been using something wrong doesn't mean things need to be adjusted to represent the wrong way.
[20:12] Kampfker is at Class 7*

I hate Aether so much right now. I am practically foaming at the mouth with sheer, utter HATE which I cannot describe.

But, staying on the topic, is the Aether Beam Saber Rifle a very common weapon? I was under the impression it was not. Also, what would its Rapid Pulse mode be under this new system? Though I currently would rather focus on making sure the system itself works - and consider many of the weapon and armor ratings on there provisional just so we have a framework to work within - I do feel that many of the weapons and armor are improperly tiered.

Now, I rage quit for the day.

 

[Koenig808]

I'm not forcing you to change up your plot. You're free to "fudge" the performance of the HPAR to a degree - but it will stay at Class 9 on its wiki article because there is no reason to suddenly bring it from a "Heavy" rifle from the pre-revision to a "light" rifle such as the LCA. You are also free to use the LCA or even develop a weapon you think would be more appropriate.

 

[Fred]

But, staying on the topic, is the Aether Beam Saber Rifle a very common weapon? I was under the impression it was not. Also, what would its Rapid Pulse mode be under this new system? Though I currently would rather focus on making sure the system itself works - and consider many of the weapon and armor ratings on there provisional just so we have a framework to work within - I do feel that many of the weapons and armor are improperly tiered.

Well, it's a common sight in the Star Army of Yamatai for its spacy armor, though perhaps it's grown uncommon ever since the Mindy's packed its aether weaponry in its forearms. So far, my feeling is that rapid fire is somewhere mid anti-armor, beam mode somewhere between heavy or super heavy, and the sword mode in the low anti-vehicle. This said, yes, I also consider the values of the examples provisional; I've done a sweep of the examples around anti-personnel for now, I'll pick up later (learned a ton of stuff on various weapon systems in the process, which was cool).

I also agree that some of the stuff listed as examples was kind of thrown in without insight of the information actually communicated. I do get Kampfer's point that he wants the HPAR to be a top-dog weapon and the rationale as to why.

People thus far have mostly translated 'killing power' into 'penetration', but been unwilling to have that define the weapon's effectiveness on top of its performance - which had kind of been my goal. It's probably a combination of its per-bullet lethality and firing rate that the HPAR happens to be a Heavy Anti-Armor weapon. This really encourages the DPS-per-period outlook since it causes a similar impact to before and might suit the soft sci-fi setting we have anyways, though we end up with the same hazy perceptions as before as well. Another thing is lowering the "equal offense/defense is a potential killblow" baseline to something lower. Not exactly what I set out to do, but still a workable improvement on the previous thing that's more narratively oriented; the GM can fudge/figure out the rest. My argument that the fluff text can work to add to the purpose label of the weapon as to "how" it does so works both ways.

With the above in consideration, it doesn't seem implausible for the HPAR to have a solid spot as a Class 9 weapon. I wanted the Daisy's plasma rifle in Class 8 myself, and felt the lethality was too high, so perhaps the answer is really just to reduce the expected lethality baseline and imply DPS-per-period.

I still need to do my Quality pass of the anti-armor weapons, but unless there's a significant need to portray two tiers of anti-armor weapons above the HPAR, it's probably going to stay where it is. Superheavy (Class 10) was mostly what I pictured for anti-armor grenades and mortars, so, I need to look if there's anything at an inbetween for the HPAR and those things that go huge boom. So far I haven't found much that'd look obviously above the HPAR but below a grenade blast for the moment.

 

[CadetNewb]

To make it very clear, I absolutely hate the idea of the HPAR becoming a Class 9, and that I am also sick and tired of having to already fudge the numbers and homebrew things in my plot to get around the current crap-tacular DR system. The idea that I would have to do the very same with the new one is insult to injury, as I'm being told not to use the HPAR if I feel it's overkill due to the new class. I'm essentially being robbed of a very iconic, and flavorful tool to use in RP. I'm utterly pissed of and foaming at the mouth with rage.

 

[Aendri]

Cadet, to put it bluntly, a weapon having been used incorrectly in the RP shouldn't mean we change how it's intended to be used, or how it SHOULD impact other things. I'm sorry if that's not how you'd prefer it, but you've had quite a few people now telling you that you've been using it incorrectly. Just like how Wes has final say when it comes to the Yamatai side of things, Kampfer has final say when it comes to Nepleslia, and he disagrees with your assessment of how it should impact other targets.