Uncapping Damage Ratings - Smoothing Transitions

[Cy83r K0rp53]

If you know me, I've always had trouble sinking my teeth into this odd way SARP has of rating destructive force.

Mulling it and an article over with Aendri...

[22] <Aendri> I'd drop the grenade and bomb mode ones down to PDR4 as well. just because a personal grenade doesn't do that much, but an armor grenade would do even more, so...
[22] <Cy83r> ah
[22] <Cy83r> hmm...
[22] <Aendri> ADR1 is the point that the weakest of armor weapons go at, and only personal weapons specifically designed to be overpowered should hit.
[22] <Cy83r> okay
[22] <Cy83r> thanks
[22] <Aendri> No problem.
[22] <Aendri> The biggest problem I have with the system is the gaps between the scales, but there's not much you can do to fix it, sadly.
[22] <Cy83r> the biggest problem I can see is the inability to push PDR and ADR up alongside the higher tiers
[22] <Aendri> What do you mean?
[22] <Cy83r> that would alleviate my complaint because you could then have PDR6~12 minguns that aren't powerful enough to adequately penetrate ASP
[22] <Cy83r> but you can still emulate their high cpacity for damage
[22] <Cy83r> then you have a reason for weapons with a rating like PDR7/ADR1 or ADR11/SDR2
[22] <Cy83r> right now it (Tier X DR y/Tier X+1 DR z) is just a notary quirk
[22] <Aendri> Yeah, I agree there.

I think it might be beneficial to drop the "5 is your limit" rule and also make it so that listing ADR5 and ADR5/SDR1 implies a difference between the two. Now I want to hazard a warning here and say that single-fire should still be limited to the upper limit of DR5, but weapons with a high rate of fire, large explosive payload, or some other quirk that would increase overall damage without improving the ability to penetrate higher tiers of armor like say airburst incendiaries or gattling guns should be allowed to run up to values like PDR8 or ADR12. I'd say DR12 or 15 would be the upper limit on rate-of-fire or special effects ratings.

Listing lower-tier weapons as capable against higher tiers; for example, a PDR12/ADR2 minigun using DU rounds would still have a fantastic rate of fire and be perfectly capable of mowing down infantry as easily as if it were using standard lead, but the DU grants it enough penetration to threaten light vehicles with a combination of punishing firepower and special ammunition. With a limit going up to 15, this revision has a potential maximum of jumping into DR3 on the next tier assuming the designer has a very good reason for it doing so.

As to whether or not area affect ship weapons (super-sized gattling gun?) should be given this ability as well, I'm not really sure what with SDR5 being the upper limit of the damage scale and anti-ship weapons mostly being large, slow-firing cannon or torpedo. I'd say no myself since this position is intended to smooth out ratings and give a less-limited amount of variety, not to make the scale longer.

• So, to summarize:
• PDR and ADR may exceed the DR5 limitation on their damage scales, up to a postulated maximum of DR15 in their respective tiers, for the purposes of accurately representing damage from very-rapid-fire weapons or other special-case items that are not adequately represented by the current system.
• • DR/DR ratings will be from here-on used to note a weapon with a lower-tier listing that:
  • 1) does not line up with a factor of 5 (i.e. PDR12/ADR2);
  • 2) is intentionally designed to defeat SP-type defenses (e.g. armor, hull, and shields) of the next tier up (i.e. depleted uranium rounds, aether, etc);
  • 3) any DR/DR rating will round down to the nearest factor of five to determine DR for the next-highest tier (i.e. ADR14/SDR2 and ADR15/SDR3);
  • 4) any 15/3 rated weapon should have a very good reason for not qualifying as a 15/2 rating
• DR that exceeds a rating 4 does not automatically grant itself a DR/DR rating

As a side-note, I believe I recall musings about determining DR by size of a vehicle or something, giving more room for large-caliber rapid-firing weapons to grow, I think this revision would allow mecha to have a reasonable distinction between powered armor without restricting those people who like having PA fire off the smaller anti-ship-capable weapons.


This does make a small bit of work for moderators of future NTSE submissions, but you seem to pay close attention to DR as is, so I don't think this would be a very big or tumultuous change for them.

 

[Doshii Jun]

I disagree with the system, based on the same reasoning I disagree with any DR changes:

Ultimately, it's up to the GM. If you have a complaint, talk to the GM. Better yet, select a weapon and then talk to the GM before you utilize it.

This adds more complication, math and potential for abuse. We do not need any of that.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

It adds more math, a very very little bit, sure, but I don't see the potential for abuse, the only change is in allowing the lower tiers to increase outputs without necessarily dealing higher-tier damage. There are only restrictions on damage ratings, think about it, every DR5 on a lower tier equals an increase of DR1 on the next, with this systems you have weapons dealing less than optimal damage on the lower tier until they reach a factor of 5 in the ratings in which case the lower rating is redundant and not used. Essentially, a DR12/2 (under the current system this would be only 10/2 or just plain 2) weapon is more effective against the lower tier than it is against the higher and will only have such a rating from doubly exceptional qualities as simply having a DR of 12(/0) implies the weapon has an atypical feature.

To get near this value in the current system: 1) you would have an effective DR of 10/2 or 15/3 though it would be listed as only 2 or 3; and 2) it would be an effective increase in damage capabilities since the rating would be damaging the higher tier as well, unlike the 12/0 weapon which would only affect the lower tier in a typical scenario. This system is a special-case restriction on damage that adds variety.

Kindly explain this potential for abuse, please, I cannot see it.

 

[Doshii Jun]

4) any 15/3 rated weapon should have a very good reason for not qualifying as a 15/2 rating

Endless arguments ensue.

"Abuse" I'll retract, and replace with "drama." People will push for PDR10 and PDR15 weapons that do ADR2 and 3 so they can not only effectively damage armor but utterly lay waste to unarmored personnel. That's drama the NTSE does not need.

Not to be an ass, but nothing I read in the convo between Aendri and you, as well as your explanation, leads me to a justification for your proposal. I don't see why you can't talk to the GM about it. "Hey, GM, my weapon here fires really fast and I'd like to show it can do some hurt to an armor." Or something to that effect.

It's pretty easy, and the GMs around here are not Dungeon Master-style gamerunners who seek to jerk the player around.

That's what I don't get. The only explanation I see for this scale is to take power away from the GM.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

Power away from the- what? Should I return with the argument that you are trying to oppress the players? This is a 'think of children' tactic, I'd be pleased if you dropped it outright.

Frankly, I'm a stickler for an objective ruleset that makes sense, right now there is no mechanic, IMHO, that will accurately portray or allow the portrayal of Hi-RoF weaponry that does not break into higher tiers of damage.

In this question, I have yet to receive a solid answer.

I've already laid three ground rules that should provide NTSE mods with the means and examples to adequately and objectively judge the validity of a submission with a DR5+ rating. I have also included plenty of reasoning for a designer to argue the point of having such a rating on a weapon. This is not just a petition saying "we should have higher DR limits because I said so".

If the 15/3 rating leeway makes you uncomfortable because you're used to designers and mods being unable to debate in a reasonable and mature fashion about the pros and cons of having a specific rating we can just as easily say "DR15 and DR15/2 is the maximum allowed rating for personnel and armor weapons" and be done with it.

"Hey, GM, my weapon here fires really fast and I'd like to show it can do some hurt to an armor."

This would be a case of a PDR weapon jumping into the ADR tier because of high rate of fire, which is exactly what I'm trying to remedy. A proper statement of this type would be more like: "Hey, NTSE mod, this weapon fires really really fast, but I can't justify giving it a higher-tiered DR because of the small rounds it uses, why can't I say it does more than DR5 on the lower tier without hurting armor?"

Admittedly, that's precisely what I've been saying, though I don't think you were getting it. Actually, none of the mods I've posed this question have been able to give me a reasonable answer, I keep getting: "that would cause drama", you mean that stuff we already have? or I get "the system doesn't work that way, you can't go above 5" which, hey, I already knew, hence asking why the system didn't allow for high-volume low-damage weapons and instead forced all weapons to increase power along with frequency of damage (i.e. SDR1 is high-powered damage, SDR1 against infantry aka 'PDR25' would be high frequency damage).

I've been told that DR not only represents damage from a single shot, but also abstracts damage over one round of combat.

The damage ratings weren't meant to be solely considered single-shot, but rather potential damage through a ten-second time period of actively using the weapon.

However, we run into a problem so clearly spoken by Wes, who, as you have also done, seems to have missed my point of argument and gone and stated it back to me.

Generally weapons of a lower tier cannot damage object of a higher tier.

For instance, a group of guys firing PDR machine guns at a TASHA robot tank (armor scale) are not going to hurt it, even if they have a hundred guns firing at once. Similarly, starfighters canot do much against starships unless they have starship scale (ADR5/SDR1) super-heavy guns.

This, this right here is justification for having extended PDR and ADR limits for rapid-fire or other special-case qualities.

A gattling gun firing PDR bullets (generally some sort of assault rifle or LMG round) or anti-personnel grenades should not really be capable of doing more that hitting weak points more often and mostly just scratching the armor on a tank. However, they should have more than enough of a PDR to waste several soldiers at once in a single, one-round burst of fire (assuming the blast or swathe of fire is in range and on target).


Ultimately, the current opinion comes to this:

The DR system doesn't deal with those exceptions - it covers stuff in broader strokes. The specifics are for GMs and their players to iron out.

My only argument is that it can deal with those exceptions and I think this oh so very minor modification to damage limits would clear it up.

I'll admit DR is just a reference tool for players, but that in itself does not justify leaving an oversight unfixed, especially if some people find it a very irritating one and the fix shouldn't cause (from my perspective) any real headache to implement and arbitrate.

 

[Fred]

Frankly, I'm a stickler for an objective ruleset that makes sense, right now there is no mechanic, IMHO, that will accurately portray or allow the portrayal of Hi-RoF weaponry that does not break into higher tiers of damage.

It isn't a ruleset. It's a guide. Your intention to expand it to detail it further in this situation does open some cans of worms, but it more potentially goes in the face of keeping SARP a primarily freeform roleplay. SARP had a detailed character creation ruleset before that covered racial abilities and skills and it was dropped for good reasons.

We're not turning SARP into a tabletop game. Wes is making efforts for that elsewhere... but going for more involved mechanics demands statsheets or CPUs to calculate them, making such better for videogames. SARP isn't a videogame either. The sooner you understand the operational constraints of forum roleplays and the rule lawyering behind them (those worth upholding and those that are needless fluff), the better.

For one, I see drama coming out of the cap of 5 in a category being breached, as many people will use that precedent to go and dramatically increase the numerical output of their creations, recreating the kind of tech drama that we've of late got better at toning down. There are going to be a great many required wiki edits for that and I don't see the payoff as being worth it.

Also, there's the matter of PDR weapons stealing the thunder from the weapons in the superior category. You say some anti-personnel weapons should be able to go over the scale, but in going over the scale, they also diminish the limelight the weapons in the upper grade possesses. I pretty much contest the idea that a PDR10 minigun should exist and stand side to side in destructive potential with a ADR2 plasma rifle. A true anti-armor weapon should dwarf anything an anti-personnel weapon should do.

The above is a Pandora's Box I'd rather keep close.

 

[Doshii Jun]

Power away from the- what? Should I return with the argument that you are trying to oppress the players? This is a 'think of children' tactic, I'd be pleased if you dropped it outright.

I won't, sadly, because ...

Frankly, I'm a stickler for an objective ruleset that makes sense, right now there is no mechanic, IMHO, that will accurately portray or allow the portrayal of Hi-RoF weaponry that does not break into higher tiers of damage.

We reveal the crux of the issue: You want a ruleset. I hate rules.

Rules are for games. I tell stories.

"Hey, GM, my weapon here fires really fast and I'd like to show it can do some hurt to an armor."
This would be a case of a PDR weapon jumping into the ADR tier because of high rate of fire, which is exactly what I'm trying to remedy. A proper statement of this type would be more like: "Hey, NTSE mod, this weapon fires really really fast, but I can't justify giving it a higher-tiered DR because of the small rounds it uses, why can't I say it does more than DR5 on the lower tier without hurting armor?"

Admittedly, that's precisely what I've been saying, though I don't think you were getting it.

I got it, don't worry. However, you answer your own question later on.

A gattling gun firing PDR bullets (generally some sort of assault rifle or LMG round) or anti-personnel grenades should not really be capable of doing more that hitting weak points more often and mostly just scratching the armor on a tank. However, they should have more than enough of a PDR to waste several soldiers at once in a single, one-round burst of fire (assuming the blast or swathe of fire is in range and on target).

Well, yeah. That's sensible for such a weapon can do that. Unless your GM is a jerk, that should work. A bullet doesn't just stop in one person because it hit a target at the height of its PDR.

Ultimately, the current opinion comes to this:

The DR system doesn't deal with those exceptions - it covers stuff in broader strokes. The specifics are for GMs and their players to iron out.

My apologies — Fred answered your question for you. Then answered it again.

This is fundamental, so I'm not here to change your opinion, just state why I'm opposed.

SARP is not a game. It's a Role-Play. That means things are fudged at corners, routes are shortcut-around and generally wild stuff can happen that even the GM just did not count on. I.e. rules get busted or simply do not exist.

No GM has given you a satisfactory answer to your question because you don't like the answer. That doesn't make it unsatisfactory. It makes it unpopular. It also doesn't make your perception of the DR system's having an "oversight" accurate.

We're writers telling stories, with GMs as the editors. We are not engineers playing math games with NTSE mods as the supervisors. That is a fundamental difference you don't like or don't care to accept, yet the difference remains.

 

[Wes]

The current system is working as intended; no matter how high your ROF is, your PDR minigun is never going to damage a starship hull, and probably not an armor one. Approving this proposal would essentially destroy the damage tier system, meaning it'd essentially become only one class of damage, just in different units of measurement. The other issue is that weapons here are already quite damaging in many cases and making them even more deadly without any adjustment to the defense side would be a nightmare. As Fred pointed out, the current system is a guideline, and in that GM's plot, things can be tweaked/fudged as needed.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

*one rant and a noticing of Doshii's reply later*

Alright, fine, I get it. I completely disagree that you can't have rules and freeform roleplay in the same game, but hey, I'm not getting anywhere trying to get a more sensical guideline put in so I'll drop the issue of getting it instated, but continue the debate because I'm enjoying it.

There are going to be a great many required wiki edits for that and I don't see the payoff as being worth it.

Actually, there wouldn't be too many, you'd need a rate of fire in the thousands to qualify for anything beyond 6 or 7 DR, at least in my book.

I pretty much contest the idea that a PDR10 minigun should exist and stand side to side in destructive potential with a ADR2 plasma rifle

Negative, the ADR2 plasma gun has the same numerical potential, yes, but it also can affect armor-scale SP, the minigun cannot. That's the core idea behind this suggestion, that you can increase the damage without increasing penetration.

A bullet doesn't just stop in one person because it hit a target at the height of its PDR.

That is your interpretation of the system, this conceit is not stated in the guidelines. It might be useful to modify the article to recognize this apparent fact of yours.

We reveal the crux of the issue: You want a ruleset. I hate rules.

So, am I to understand you let your bias get in the way of decisions about what might be good for the game?

That would make your "think of the children/catgirls" remark imply you are actually only thinking of yourself. :3c
Of course, that could be implied with my dislike of the lack of mechanical detail too...

Rules are for games. I tell stories.

So... you don't have any consistent internal rules when you write stories? They must be difficult to understand or interpret. Everything has rules, Doshii, even stories; especially stories.

We are not engineers playing math games with NTSE mods as the supervisors.

Sometimes engineers like to write stories too. And this is a game, the players use guidelines built under mathematical conceits, the GMs determine results either on whim or with mathematical formula that can be as simple as addition and subtraction, though not necessarily of damage and protection. Engineers build things, even rules, even stories, anyone who puts pieces together by understanding their function and purpose can be termed a type of engineer by my understanding of the word, which seems to be very much in line with the original definition. If you, Doshii are not an engineer and do not use, develop, or recognize rules in your duty to this forum, I do not think you should feel justified in being allowed to keep your position.

You are using rules, just not ones built so obviously of numbers.

no matter how high your ROF is, your PDR minigun is never going to damage a starship hull, and probably not an armor one

Wes... dood... that's the idea. You've gone and stated my assurance at me as concerns, I'm starting to think you aren't really paying attention to what I say.

Approving this proposal would essentially destroy the damage tier system, meaning it'd essentially become only one class of damage, just in different units of measurement

Not unless you bungled the modification so badly as to ignore every point I've made to keep a definition between the damage tiers.

The other issue is that weapons here are already quite damaging in many cases and making them even more deadly without any adjustment to the defense side would be a nightmare

I assume you're talking about the issue with your propensity for over-gunning starship designs? These issues would not even be touched by the modification, SDR remains at a cap of 5, being the existing top of the damage rating scale. The only potential change is that starfighter cannons built 1) for rapid fire (i.e. gattling gun) or extended exposure (i.e. aether; no, IMO there is no effective DR difference between a slow, long-pulse beam and a rapid, short-pulse beam) and 2) to take on starships, would be slightly better at destroying other starfighters than starships.

As Fred pointed out, the current system is a guideline, and in that GM's plot, things can be tweaked/fudged as needed.

I would say having a tweak already in place would obviate the need for GMs to make things up on the fly, though that's just me. This edit to the system could be easily ignored if someone didn't like it, but the only time it would be raised as an issue would be in player-versus-player plots where a comprehensive and considerate damage system would be an advantage, though the only things that ever really become PVP are massed ship fights where the existing problem of over-gunned designs defeats any attempt at fixing other problems. Though I could see applications for ground or non-ship combats.

Also, there's the matter of PDR weapons stealing the thunder from the weapons in the superior category.

Just because you can give ADR and PDR a few more options steals the thunder of SDR? How? I'm not seeing it.

Approving this proposal would essentially destroy the damage tier system, meaning it'd essentially become only one class of damage, just in different units of measurement.

Again, this idea is supposed to smooth the transitions between each tier, turn it into a gradient rather than two geometric jumps in overall output. The distinction between personnel, armor, and ship remains, it's just softer. And it already is just one class of damage with different units of measurement or does calling it SDR and saying ADR and PDR can't affect it normally make increments of 25 PDR somehow independent from the scale?

NOTE: It is called a 'scale', that implies one unit of measurement, which it does use, or have you forgotten the DR conversion table in the article?

If this change would "destroy" the damage tier system then it is already gone and this modification would change nothing of import.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

I've just been informed that there used to be no DR system.

Why has the SARP adopted something this... horribly inefficient... over narrative damage?

I'll state my peace at this point, I'll advocate for either no system or a working, sensible system, either way I don't care, just pick one, not this ridiculous hodgepodge of paranoid hamstringing of both.

 

[Gabriel]

Although this doesn't quite answer the current question, but more addresses the problem from the beginning. If you want to use a machine gun that does the equivalent of 10PDR to take out a small group of units, just grab a damn Missile Launcher that does 2ADR and fire it into the center, it does the same thing, and doesn't complicate the rules.

In reference to your comment about the reason for the DR system, it's simply a guideline. I'm not sure if it was ever meant to be used EXACTLY as it's stated, but the definitely is not how most GMs used it now. It simply wouldn't be practical. Under the current system, a 1 on 1 fight between two Power Armors could literally require 8 or 9 direct hits (3-4ADR per hit, 15 armor, 15 shields), which I don't find to be realistic. In any combat, two equally matched vehicles will be able to take out each other with three or four hits, less if they hit the right spot. A tank would take over a half a dozen hits to take out another tank, but when you think about modern combat, two or three hits should do the trick.

To sum it up, are there flaws? Yes. Will there always be flaws? Yes. Will you ever get it perfect? No. No matter what might seem helpful to you, there will always be someone who doesn't see the need for it. My personal view is that it's a good idea, and may work out well if used properly, but many GMs already factor something like that into their combat, it would require days worth of wiki editing, and GMs that don't like it would ignore it anyways. Basically, I like it, but is simply isn't worth it.

 

[Cy83r K0rp53]

Yeah, that's another thing I find irritating, the fact that defense is given higher priority than attack. I've also noticed a few people here also really seem to think the DR values account for accuracy as well and try and hit their target every turn with a full force shot.

Having hashed this out with Doshii, I'm convinced you guys still aren't quite getting what I mean when I say PDR15 is PDR15. Granted Doshii has a major bias against any sort of numbers because he dislikes PvP and doesn't need numbers to visualize. I'd like to state that I completely disagree with him on the principle that it just seems to be this RP forum that I have met people who can't get along while shoving a knife into their friend's character's guts.


But to continue with my point:

What I mean is that those 15 points of damage are essentially a spray of multiple rounds or a blastwave and do not- DO. NOT. -deal equivalent damage to armor-scale defenses; it's like putting 5 PDR3 shots into one attack, you're just adding the damage together not firing one big attack. What I'm simply trying to say is that a weapon with PDR15 because of a special quality will hit personnel-scale targets at DR15 and will hit armor-scale targets at DR0 unless an ADR value is listed next to the PDR value (i.e. PDR5/ADR1).

That is the difference between a DR and a DR/DR damage rating.

To summarize:
1) ADR3 == 15 PDR
There is no need to say PDR15/ADR3 since the factors line up evenly, this goes for PDR5/ADR1 and PDR10/ADR2
2) PDR14/2 == 14 PDR or 2 ADR
3) PDR14 == 14 PDR


So, I'll put it up again and hopefully you'll get it this time. Note that distinctions are made between DR (i.e. PDR5) and DR/DR (PDR5/ADR1) ratings.

• PDR and ADR may exceed the DR5 limitation on their damage scales, up to a postulated maximum of DR15 in their respective tiers, for the purposes of accurately representing damage from very-rapid-fire weapons or other special-case items that are not adequately represented by the current system.
• • DR/DR ratings will be from here-on used to note a weapon with a lower-tier listing that:
  • 1) does not line up with a factor of 5 (i.e. PDR12/ADR2);
  • 2) is intentionally designed to defeat SP-type defenses (e.g. armor, hull, and shields) of the next tier up (i.e. depleted uranium rounds, aether, etc);
  • 3) any DR/DR rating will round down to the nearest factor of five to determine DR for the next-highest tier (i.e. ADR14/SDR2 and ADR15/SDR3);
  • 4a) any 15/3 rated weapon should have a very good reason for not qualifying as a 15/2 rating
  • 4b) alternate ruling; special-case weapons may not exceed a secondary rating of x/2 where x is a primary rating of 10 to 15 (for clarity, a weapon may have a secondary rating of up to x/1 if the primary rating is anywhere from 5 onwards, ratings below 10 may not have a secondary rating of x/2)
• DR that exceeds a rating 4 does not automatically grant itself a DR/DR rating
• A DR rating that qualifies for an x/1 or x/2 secondary rating (DR/DR weapons) may opt and is encouraged to opt for a lower secondary value if the weapon would logically be less effective at dealing damage to the next tier of defenses

Again, I can give a weapon PDR10 capability by just giving it ADR2 and call it a day, but I think such a rating would make an anti-personnel weapon far too strong since it would be effective against armor as well.

I'm not asking to obviate higher tiers, I'm asking for the option to limit higher grades of damage so that weapons which should only be capable of PDR but should have better damage capacity than PDR4 can have that realistic strength without being able to rip through a tank as well.

And realistically, this DR is going to be spread across multiple targets (i.e. minigun), have a slow firing rate but a good penetration or spread with a long-pulse beam or something similar (i.e. aether, needle laser), or be a one-use and inaccuracte item that deals its damage to everything in the effective zone (i.e. bomb), and is just an abstraction of its total potential for damage.

DR doesn't drop to zero just because the bullet hits one target

Though it's multiple bullets and in real life the round is generally ruined for the purposes of damaging things when it hits a target.

Doshii may not care about numbers and never really need to use them, but several of us are of the opposite opinion and would like a more concrete guideline to suit our tastes. This would not change how current weapons are rated, does not require already-created weapons to be updated, and does not affect the DR scale in any negative manner as far as adding any more "drama" than you already have. Hell, I'll turn this into a petition and get signatures if you want to see that a portion of the playerbase has the same or similar views as myself, Aendri, and Gabriel. Let's see, we have three against, two for and one that seems like he's for, I'd call that a tie of opinion.

I would agree that, if this, once put into place, does prompt some idiots to try something stupid and that the problem does not end up appearing to be localised to one or two individuals, you may scrap the modifications with no dissent from me, but you'd have to implement them first because I won't take this talk of doom-and-gloom as a valid threat until I see it.

 

[Fred]

Let me put this another way.

You lost this argument already simply on the level of your attitude. you wanted a debate for what exactly? To piss your detractors off? Get a fuzzy feel-good feeling about yourself about continuing circuitous arguments and shoving other people in your righteous interpretation of math just so you could be proven right, rather than sincerely just wanting to offer an improvement?

I think I've taken about all the 'holier-than-thou' snotty 'know-it-all' arguments I could from you Cy83r K0rp53. I no longer believe you're actually trying to improve something - because I'm open to things which are clear improvements - rather, you're trolling. I dislike trolls.

The DR scale is flawed, I won't deny that. Some of it is by design, some of it is selection of lesser evils to match our present medium of communication, some of it is actual concept flaws. It'll no doubt get streamlined in the future to accommodate that.

But that change won't happen over your shitty 'my guys vs. your guys' attitude. Get over yourself. If you truly believe what's in place is badly implemented and truly want to benefit the site, then start out from scratch, create your own thing your way (feel free to brainstorm with 'your guys' to get what you deem is the perfect solution), and then offer it as a setting submissions for others to accept.

 

[Exhack]

Well, that just about concludes what can be said in this thread before segueing into any further redundancy.

Can we have this thread locked?

 

[Nashoba]

Locked.