Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Paul Oct 14 2011, 04:53 PM

I'm sure this has been debated in great length, so feel free to point me in the right direction but in the 20th Anniversary Edtion on page 150 it says:

Okay some of this I get. But the one thing I guess I'm not wrapping my head around is why does it negate the smartgun link bonus? Beyond game balance, that is?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 04:57 PM

I don't understand 'beyond game balance'. There's a game, and the fluff is added to match. Presumably, it's something like 'you can't process both at once, not without a penalty that happens to cancel the bonus'. There are other penalties for distraction and sensory overload in the game.

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 14 2011, 05:04 PM

Cough.

Dual. Weapons. Plural. Not possessive.

http://www.apostropheabuse.com/

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 05:06 PM

I mean, give credit for not saying 'duel weapons'.

Anyway, I think you're going to be disappointed if your goal is to find a 'realistic' explanation. There's plenty of unrealism on both sides (things allowed and things disallowed).

Posted by: Paul Oct 14 2011, 05:10 PM

Damn spell check. Maybe I should use it....

Posted by: CanRay Oct 14 2011, 05:11 PM

Spellcheck is no replacement for knowledge of the language.

...

And I'm totally a hypocrite for saying that.

Posted by: Warlordtheft Oct 14 2011, 05:16 PM

But what if you got two smartgun systems (not the gun, but in the cybereyes)?

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 05:22 PM

Okay. A smartgun works by using a camera in the gun and feeding that info to your eyes (either via cybereyes or some kind of glasses/contact lenses). It takes both of your eyes to properly interpret the information from that camera, enabling your improved aim.

Now you want to add a second camera, giving both of your eyes two different sets of visual targeting information, that you still have to intepret at the SAME TIME, and you expect this to give you a BONUS?!

Frankly, I think it should give you a penalty for trying it. It'd be like watching two different television feeds superimposed over one another.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 05:23 PM

Total Aside: Why're you using cybereyes, though? That's what trodes are for.

JonathanC, the problem is that you basically do that 24/7 in 2070. It's all direct brain goodness with *many* multiple sensory inputs, overlays, etc.

Posted by: Paul Oct 14 2011, 05:27 PM

See this is some of where the disconnect is coming in for me. And I admit some of it's because I already have the bias in place of thinking of the smartlink in terms of "movies I've seen." But given the technology available, and the processing power that's out there...I guess I'm in for disappointment. I don't plan changing this rule at my table, but I do want to be able to coherently present why it's there when asked.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 05:31 PM

There's a difference between passively watching 3 video feeds out of the corner of your eye while you're reading a screamsheet, and having to make split-second life-or-death decisions based on those three different video feeds at the same time.

Dual-wielding smartlinks makes absolutely no sense. The human brain isn't designed to work that way, and there's nothing in Shadowrun suggesting that people in the Sixth World can do it either. I'd believe that a drone or AI could do it, but not a Metahuman.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 05:37 PM

See, you're just inventing fluff there. Excellent game designer-ship. The fact is that, in combat, you're enjoying the effects of maybe 3 kinds of optics (which are overlays, just like the smartlink), plus the smartlink(s), plus a diverse TacNet overlay, plus group comms, etc., and none of that is typically judged to fall under the rules for AR distraction (-2, usually). Neither does any of it interfere with Perception tests (beyond the Distracted -2, which applies to essentially everything). That's no less 'split-second life-or-death' than a potentially calm, aimed 2-weapon smartlink shot.

It's purely about game balance, which is 100% fine.

Posted by: Paul Oct 14 2011, 05:39 PM

I've always wondered if that's what the Math SPU and the Encephalon were for. Add in an orientation system....Ah 3E...

Posted by: Paul Oct 14 2011, 05:39 PM

Which in the end will probably be my fall back answer.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 05:42 PM

The alternative, which is also acceptable, is to adjust the crunch to better match a 'reality' you're comfortable with. You can then make it more expensive, or reduce their effectiveness in tandem, or whatever else you want. Balance is something you can work at different ways.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 05:52 PM

I'm not looking for a fight here, but the info you're describing isn't the same as having two separate smartlink feeds.

The way human vision works, you can only focus on one point at a time. Everything else in your field of vision is peripheral. This means that you can't really read text outside of your field of vision that well, but you can detect movement, changes in color, etc. Some people with retinal detachment undergo therapy to make better use of their peripheral vision (it's all they have left), but for the average person it's completely useless.

Augmented reality feeds are like walking around with a series of rear-view mirrors. If you see something in a feed that catches your attention, you shift your focus. But you can't have two simultaneous visual focuses. You'd go crosseyed trying to, and your brain wouldn't be able to make proper sense of the data...this might be okay if you were watching security cams looking for movement, but if you were trying to target two different guys at once? Absolutely not. Aiming requires focus. This is why double-gunning in real life is laughed at by most (read: any I've ever talked to) combat veterans. Unless you're just trying to put a lot of bullets in the air for suppressive fire, you're not getting anywhere.

And that's double-gunning with a clear, single field of vision. Trying to do so with two disparate visual angles would be impossible for a human. The only way it would make sense in SR would be if you had two full cyberarms, cybereyes, and some kind of targeting computer (math SPU/Encephalon wouldn't cut it; Maybe a Pilot Program linked to your nervous system?)

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 06:06 PM

I don't think you're correct. AR can be separate windows, but it can also be overlays; predominantly the latter, I think. The smartlink is described as nothing more than a laser dot in your head, a quite modest overlay pointing out where the computer estimates your bullet will land. I don't know why you think there are different visual angles, unless you think the typical use-case for smartguns is 'blind fire'. If we're talking about someone hiding behind a barrier and sticking just the two guns out, that's something different. It's more along the lines of using two *scopes* at once.

You lose the smartlink bonus even if you're attack the same exact spot with both, using your unified normal vision.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 06:19 PM

Smartlink gun cameras are canon, as far as I know, hence the separate windows.

Posted by: Zaranthan Oct 14 2011, 06:30 PM

A Smartgun system DOES include a camera, but the bonus doesn't stem from having the video feed on your image link. The system calculates the trajectory of your shot, and projects THAT information to your vision. After all, the bonus applies to indirect fire weapons, having the camera feed wouldn't help you there.

Posted by: HunterHerne Oct 14 2011, 06:34 PM

Smartlink also has a visual display for your ammo count, so it's not just ballistic data.

I agree it shouldn't be allowed to be used at the same time. The only way to make use of both smartlinks would be to have complete multi-tasking capabilities, which is only possible in two ways in SR, neither of which is completely useful in combat (The observe in detail as a free is helpful, as is the removal of the minor distraction modifier; but the additional free actions can't be used)

Posted by: Miri Oct 14 2011, 07:15 PM

An Adept with Ambidexterity, Kinesis (in addition to the unconscious control it has been described as always knowing exactly where your body is..) and Multitasking should, in my opinion, have enough physical and mental control to gain the bonuses of two smartgun linked weapons at once. My GM disagreed and I scrapped the dual pistol gun bunny Aadept concept I was working up.

Posted by: Critias Oct 14 2011, 07:27 PM

You scrapped your whole character over two bonus dice?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 14 2011, 07:31 PM

Amazing, Isn't it?

Posted by: Mäx Oct 14 2011, 07:56 PM

Witch don't really have anythink to do with the shooting bonus, that is just an AR overplay of targeting data(a reticule showing you the expected point of impact calculated by the software)
Actually if you wan't to get the smartlink bonus while targeting through the gun cam you need to add a smartlink visual enchament to that camera.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 08:27 PM

What are you talking about? The camera is part of the Smartlink enhancement to the gun, as far as I know.

Posted by: Miri Oct 14 2011, 08:35 PM

Yes.. let us hold slavishly to the rules instead of working with the player to make the character he wants to make to help enjoy the GAME..

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 14 2011, 08:37 PM

I want to make a character that hits people with trees.

500 pound trees.

Uprooted.

Fresh.

I can do that, yeah?

Posted by: Miri Oct 14 2011, 08:39 PM

A Scottish Troll Cabertosser? Sounds interesting.

Posted by: Critias Oct 14 2011, 08:49 PM

No one's saying you can't house rule it if you want to. They're just pointing out that the rule exists, that the rule is pretty clear, and sharing what we think to be the primary reasons for the rule (game balance).

It's worth pointing out that even in canon the rule's been broken -- Teachdaire, back in Prime Runners -- so there's a "canon" precedent that's been set for dual-smartlink-technology being possible. If you want to allow it for a PC, if you want to encourage a PC to tap their contacts and sink some money and Essence into a custom rig, if you want to just say by the mid 2070s every smartlink is capable of handling multiple weapons...that's perfectly okay. No one's gonna come to your house and demand your books and dice, or anything.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 08:55 PM

I demand that my mage be the only mage who can teleport. Also, I have infinity health. Also, I get 4 free successes on all skill rolls, and I am trained in all skills.



Let's not pretend like it's impossible to have fun within the boundaries of the rules. He's losing two dice on a firearms test; it's not the end of the world. Who the hell expects guns akimbo to be hyper-accurate anyway? This isn't Equilibrium: The Game.

Posted by: Critias Oct 14 2011, 09:03 PM

Given how die pool splits work, it's actually scarily effective.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 09:07 PM

Then nobody should be complaining about the lack of smartlink bonuses.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 14 2011, 09:36 PM

Yes the smartlink package includes a camera, but the camera has nothing to do with the shooting bonus you get from smartlink.
Just as my last post said, what part of it are you having trouble understanding?

Posted by: Critias Oct 14 2011, 09:55 PM

Well, no. They're free to complain if they want to. It's just that such complaints might not be terribly justified, in the opinion of the rest of us.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 14 2011, 09:55 PM

Oh hell, now you make me want to get two compact laser pointers for my airsoft Berettas to check how hard it really is!

Posted by: Udoshi Oct 14 2011, 10:00 PM

Fluff-wise, at least as far as I understand it, it doesn't work while dual wielding because its incredibly disorienting to deal with two crosshairs at once.

If you want to get a bonus for using two smartlinks/guns at once, the best option you have is with a rating 1 Tacsoft. Smartgun systems come with a laser range finder and a camera, which provides the two necessary sensor channels. With two guns and yourself(assuming, oh, a simrig, or even cybereyes), you meet the minimum-participant requirement.
Its only a +1 bonus, but if you throw in an Optimization: Tactical AR soft hardware mod(its in unwired), you can bump that back up to a +2.

The system is roughly equivalent to a smartlink, but you can share it with your team if you like.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 10:08 PM

I dunno, Mäx, I thought I made the some point very clear myself. Better stop trying.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 14 2011, 10:19 PM

Just has to wait for him to enlighten us on what part he's not getting

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 14 2011, 10:41 PM

The part where you don't understand how human vision works, I guess.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 14 2011, 11:24 PM

*shrug* Like I said.

Posted by: crash2029 Oct 15 2011, 01:20 AM

I have a question that's related. If you have two guns with smartlinks but only fire one of them per simple action, does the smartlink bonus apply? My current character has a pair of Rugers that only fire in SS and he only fires them one at a time.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 15 2011, 01:24 AM

It's a driver conflict when you have two smartgun links going at the same time.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 02:29 AM

That's perfectly fine, crash2029.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Oct 15 2011, 02:52 AM

Have you ever tried experimenting with this? I have. I took two laser pointers and tried toying around to see if I could keep them "locked" on two separate targets that were far enough away where I had to move my eyes to keep track of both of them, even if just a little. It was a chore under calm circumstances. Trying to do it with the adrenalin pumping, the targets moving, and... I don't even want to think about trying to do it then.

Sure, keeping them both on a single target is a lot easier, but it's still challenging especially if you're going for precision rather than, say, center mass.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:00 AM

Oh, sure. I'm all for the Additional Target Penalty being bigger, and it should penalize the primary as well (like D&D, hehe); -2/-4/etc.? Maybe more. I just don't agree that, in SR4, the smartlink should magically stop working altogether just because you're aiming two guns (potentially at the same exact point) based on a 'realistic distraction' argument.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Oct 15 2011, 03:01 AM

What's the difference between "no bonus" and "a +2 bonus with a -2 penalty?"

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:06 AM

Consistency, mostly. It also produces different results if you don't have a smartlink to begin with, which is harsh but probably appropriate. Again, I'm fine with it being (very) hard to aim two guns at *different* targets; that's only fair. And I'm no great fan of the 'omg, dual-wielding is cool' concept, personally. But it is a weird little glitch that the smartlink wouldn't work on the RAW-approved single target version. In that situation, I bet 2 smartlinks/laser sights would help a lot.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:23 AM

You bet? Based on what?

Obviously not an understanding of how human eyes work; or even actual experimentation, given that someone already stated that they tried this out and it didn't work. If you're shooting at an idiot who is standing perfectly still while you line up two separate guns on him, you shouldn't be getting smartlink bonuses anyway because at that point, it can't possibly be easier to hit him. In anything resembling a combat situation, it makes no sense to give the bonus, and the idea of negating the bonus with a penalty for "your brain doesn't work that way, moron" is just stupid. Piling on random bonuses and penalties slows down combat and ruins the experience in play because people spend forever looking up their goddamn bonuses.

Keep it sensible.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 15 2011, 03:30 AM

1. the smartgun system on a gun is a combination camera, range-finder, & mini-computer that feeds the sensors/mechanical systems on a gun. The system controls pieces of the gun & delivers data from the gun to whatever processor that interprets the info & displays it.

2. the smartgun system in eyes is what interprets the data from a smartgun & displays it on the eyes.

3. Using information from the eyes, the brain interprets that data & allows a person to "see" the image. The human brain requires 2 separate inputs & feeds in order to gauge distance. If someone only has 1 eye, they have great difficulty gauging distance do to the lack of a 2ndary reference perspective.

4. To shoot a gun, it takes more than pointing the gun at the target. Anticipation of wind & the bullet dropping & angle of the shot will require nuanced adjustments to hit a target. Especially if the target is far away.

So from it seems, the electronic hardware for smartguns is still limited by the human brain's need for 2 eyes, 2 separate perspective/references, & if you have 2 feeds coming in from 2 cameras, for 2 separate, independent guns... it causes issues. Like rubbing your tummy with 1 hand & patting your head with the other. Some folks can do it, some cannot. Either case... separation of brain, eyes, & muscles is complicated.

All in all though... I think it's probably a game balance issue.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:30 AM

I bet, based on nothing. Sue me, or show my your peer-reviewed evidence. I think you'll find he [Ol' Scratch] didn't say he tried *this*. He performed a distinct task, one which I specifically mentioned: multiple targets. He then compared to the single target case, and called it 'easier but challenging'. I'm going to give that a soft rating, personally.

In fact, it *can* be easier to hit a stationary target in the open. That's why there's a dice pool.

Given that we're already using the smartgun in *all* other cases, and the multiple-target penalties are independent, I think you'll find that my proposal is actually less time 'looking up bonuses'.

Anyway, you seem pretty agitated about this, though I appreciate that you're taking it out on the hypothetical targets.

--
See, Saint Hallow, I'm just not feeling it. All we're talking about is a dot on things you're seeing. There's no mucking around with your natural binocular vision at all; there is only ever *one* feed (caveat: see earlier post). The smartgun is handling all the physics already, so it's not that, either. You're getting a +2 bonus for having a calculated dot seamlessly integrated into your vision. The laser sight gives a +1 in a nearly identical way, except without the handy calculations. Either way, the dot helps you aim. Having two dots does not *hurt* your aiming ability, and there's already a separate penalty for trying to aim at multiple targets. Dots can only help with that (difficult) task, and dots can only help with the much simpler task of aiming two guns at one target.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:49 AM

Dude, if you're just going to ignore any logical argument because...well....apparently no good reason, then what's the point? You haven't made any sort of sensible argument in favor of your point of view, and all you've done is dismiss every sensible argument without providing even a *shred* of actual criticism. Even your single-target scenario doesn't make any goddamn sense. If you're going to claim that this is about realism, then your argument has to make sense in the real world. Human vision doesn't work the way that you're claiming, and neither does successfully targeting with a pistol.

If, on the other hand, you're going to claim that this is about game balance, then make an argument based on that. This whole "my ridiculous crap is right just because I say it is" thing is getting really annoying.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:06 AM

Are you just projecting, or what? As I said from the beginning, you're just stating things and calling them facts. How many times are you going to vaguely assert 'human vision doesn't work that way'? That's the definition of 'my ridiculous crap is right just because I say it is'… and you're right about it.

I think you'll find that the very first thing I did was say 'it's just game balance, realism arguments will be a total mess'. However, because you charged in with opinions blazing, I did engage you at the level of the SR4 world. You grossly mischaracterized what a smartgun is and how it works, and then the vague 'facts' started recurring. I also like the way you're using 'logical', 'sensible', 'criticism', etc. to mean 'agreeing with me'.

But, because I'm an optimistic with bad short-term memory, I'll repeat myself:

Smartlinks/laser pointers add a dot to your normal vision (ignoring irrelevant aspects like ammo count). This dot helps you aim; in the case of the smartlink, it helps more due to physics calculation. Two guns, two dots. It does not make sense for the dots to stop helping entirely just because your attention is divided (two targets), and it makes even less sense when your attention is *not* (one target). The same dots are still there, in your normal field of vision, so they're still helpful. Multiple targets *is* hard, which is why it has its own independent penalty (which should be bigger, alas). Until you present credible evidence that having the dots doesn't help at all in either of these contexts, your assertion is not better than mine.

Given that the smartgun bonus is an eternal component of the DP, adding it is not slowing down the game; taking it away is. Given that the multi-target penalty will apply independently of the smartgun's presence, there is no effect on game speed *at all* from it. What could reasonably be expected to slow the game is remembering to remove the otherwise constant smartgun bonus. If this is even a real concern at all; I don't know, it's your argument.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 15 2011, 04:13 AM

You're right, there's 1 feed. It's 1 feed that's hitting both eyes. It's the BRAIN that interprets, but the tech is hitting the eyes. Having only 1 dot appear on 1 eye is going to throw your depth perception off. I think the 1 smartgun feed is feeding 2 dots. 1 per eye. If you have 2 smartgun feeds going in, it's 4 dots, 2 per eye, & the brain is trying to figure out how to interpret those 4 dots into 2 dots.

An experiment you can try is closing 1 eye and holding an index card with a dot on it in front of you. Do the same, but no card to the other eye. Do this multiple times and see if the dot always lines up or appears to be the same distance. Try moving the card to varying distances. If you do this fast enough & multiple times, you'll see a weird vertigo effect where things seem skewed (at least ti did for me).

If you think of the dot as the sights on a gun, there's a rear sight and a front sight. Without both working together, aiming is a pain. Using a scope is different. it flattens the target a bit & gives you a distance in numbers. Its up to the shooter to guess how the bullet trajectory will go when it gets to that far of a distance.

I do think that if SR has nanites & tech that can enhance muscle & nerves... why don't we have a way to help people separate input information so multiple feeds like 2 smartgun links are feasible. Maybe a new deltaware cost smartlink can give that stuff? Houserule?

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Oct 15 2011, 04:21 AM

Actually yes, it does.

A smartlink is little more than a smarter laser dot or crosshair without the laser or having to hold the weapon up to your eye. It has a few other minor features, like feeding you information about your weapon and accounting for range and whatnot. It's doesn't affect your brain in the slightest. It doesn't let you overcome the basic limitations your brain has. Keeping precise aim (which is what the bonus represents) on two objects or from two objects is a nightmare for our simple little minds. They're simply not made to do that.

Just getting two laser pointers to focus on the exact same spot and holding it there for any measure of time takes quite a bit of patience, and even when you do, it's a pain in the ass to keep them both there compared to do ing i with just one. And that's when you're calm and relaxed. Trying to maintain them on different targets is just as hard, and if they're far enough apart that you have to move your eye (even just a smidge), the difficulty goes up and up.

Trying to do it in split second, in a live-or-die combat situation, with your heart beating a mile a minute... it's all but impossible. Just like it is trying to use two crosshairs at the same time.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:26 AM

I dig it, Saint Hallow, but the smartlink already deals with the binocular issue. That's its job. It does it with one dot, it can certainly do it for 2 dots. AR does it in SR4 all the time with a lot more than that: you can dynamically recolor all enemies red, or give all orks cartoon mustaches, all in real time, all in full 3D, whatever. Maybe the dots are different colors, different shapes, whatever. But this is an issue that SR4 tech has long mastered, according to the information we have about the world.

I also totally get your rear-front sight point. But again, that's what the smartgun is doing for you, and that's *why* it's doing it. And the bullet trajectory: again, the smartgun's complete raison d'être.

I fully agree that all bets are off if we're talking about use scopes, which is why AFAIK we're not.

Final side note: I've long supported adding a really clear system of sense/sensor/feed distinctions in SR4, because what we have now is a vague mess. I mean, do you make a Sensor test when using a guncam? Who knows. But until that day, we have to work with what we've got.

--
Aw, come on, Ol' Scratch. You're saying you can aim two guns at two targets better with no dots than 2 dots? (Hell, equally badly?) Or even one dot (only one gun has a laser, let's say). And again, for one target? I'm sorry, if you're saying that, I'll have to see the experimental data.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:27 AM

It's not just me. Saint Hallow told you the same thing about human vision. So would a basic knowledge of human visual perception. Look it up.


What's your argument in terms of game balance? That the world would end if you don't get a measly +2 dice bonus when dual-wielding with smartlinks?


No, I accurately described smartgun systems as involving gun cameras and visual information passed on to the viewer; I further stated that a human being could not perform precision targeting on two disparate sets of visual stimulus at the same time. If you bothered to read your book (page 322) you'd see that I'm right about the cameras, shooting around corners, etc.


You mean the scientific facts about how your goddamned visual system works? Because I haven't seen you refute them.


We already have someone who volunteered to test your theory on two targets, so we already know you're wrong about that. With that in mind, I see no reason to believe you with regards to one target. In combat, against a moving target, you're "just" trying to aim at one target from two different angles using a brain that was designed to focus on one point in your vision at a time.


Yes, and you were proposing that we add it, then take it away, which is retarded. Hence, my complaint.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 15 2011, 04:27 AM

another good experiment to try is to goto a video arcade (if they still exist in your local area). Find an FPS shooter game for multiple players. House of the Dead, GunBlade, etc... try to play as both characters and use a gun in each hand. See how shooting at separate targets or the same target is when you have 2 target cross hairs on your screen.

Some of us have done this (spent more than I care to admit to). Shooting at 1 target with both guns is easy, but I did notice I tended to keep my aim towards center of screen. When trying to hit 2 separate targets, I screwed up 1 gun always. Drift & shooting arm weakness.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:30 AM

Jesus Christ, how hard is this to understand?! First of all, it's a crosshair, not a dot. Check the book. Second of all, it's feeding the visual information to your eyes...in order to make the crosshairs appear properly in your vision, it is sending those crosshairs to EACH EYE. It looks like one crosshair, but it's actually two. Your brain puts the two together and makes one. That's what he's trying to explain to you.

If you double the info, your brain is how trying to combine four crosshairs into two crosshairs; fine, but you can only focus on one at a time, for the same reason that you can't read a book in each hand at the same time.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:32 AM

I've tried this; the only reason it's even possible is that the targets aren't moving that much, so you can lock both guns in one place. Even then, my accuracy was considerably worse than it was aiming just one gun.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:37 AM

My game balance argument is that they take away the +2 to weaken 2-gun shooting. Duh. I've certainly never said 2-gun shooting should be stronger.

You described using the smartguns in a 'guncam-only' mode. That's a very niche case, and not relevant to this. That's 'mischaracterizing', which is why I helped you out.

JonathanC, you haven't given any such facts. You have alluded to their supposed existence; you'll find this is not the same thing. Since I'm not the one spouting claims about my 'goddamned visual system', I'll leave the fact-finding to you.

Again, no, Ol' Scratch did not perform the experiments I suggested. He did something else.

At no point did I say 'add then take away'. I said 'leave it added, and then use the *normal* multi-target penalties that you would be using already, regardless'.

Crosshair means dot means circle means reticule. You can handle this, and 'dot' is a shorter word… and you'll recall that this whole argument applies equally to laser sights which project a what? (Dot.)

--
Saint Hallow, that's *exactly* what I've said: shooting at one target shouldn't be too hard. And now try that game with the dots turned off. My prediction is that the dots help, regardless. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but not to be shouted down by JC's vague appeals to common sense.

--
Look, I hear you: 2 eyes, 4 dots, 2 dots. In what way does that matter at all? The technology feeds it properly. If you can get one dot, if you can get whole AR scenes of a dozen independent elements, you can handle 2 dots.

Ah, but again, would your accuracy with 2 guns be *even* worse with no crosshairs at all? Again, I bet yes. No one said that 2 guns should be equal to one gun.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:43 AM

Wow, the "I'm too lazy to Google" defense. Haven't seen that one in a while. Here, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveal. I can't wait to see the load of bull you come up with to avoid looking like someone who skipped a few months in science class.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:47 AM

What am I supposed to be defending? I'm making no claims about the 'goddamned visual system'… and if 'making claims' means providing *any* facts at all, neither are you.

To re-re-re-restate it: the single target/dual gun scenario explicitly assumes that both dots are fully in focus (in fact, that they're on the same point, though this isn't necessary). Focus is a non-issue.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:55 AM

1. Refuse to confirm stated facts.
2. Complain that links aren't provided to you.
3. When links are provided, ignore them and claim that facts are irrelevant.
4. ????
5. Profit?

Apparently you're just a moron who doesn't want to lose an argument. Thanks for clarifying.


Unless you're starting combat with both arms locked onto the target (in which case, why would you need smartlinks?) the crosshairs would NOT be on the same spot for most of combat. Also, and I'll repeat this one last time:


YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON TWO DISPARATE POINTS AT THE SAME TIME.

Thus, managing the careful aim and control necessary to bring both targeting reticles onto the same point on a target would be extremely difficult. But of course, you don't understand this, because you apparently know nothing about the visual system, and much like ICP before you, you "don't want to talk to scientist", lest the facts of the situation get in the way of your point.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 05:04 AM

I wasn't asked to confirm any facts. I didn't complain about links. I ignored your link because I didn't ask for it, unless you think 'read wikipedia' counts as presenting *your* facts.

I didn't ask anyone to focus on 2 points at once. I'm not saying it's easy to get those two dots into position. I'm saying it's *easier* to get them into position, than to perform the same task with *no* dots. The task is hard either way, but not equally hard.

Continuously repeating your vague reference to the visual system is not an argument and it is not a fact, bud. I did finally spot one, though ('YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON TWO DISPARATE POINTS AT THE SAME TIME'). Finally. But, as I pointed out, not the right fact in this case. *shrug*. Anyway, science would be you showing me a study demonstrating that people were tested shooting with 1 and 2 guns, at 1 and 2 targets, with 0, 1, and 2 laser dots (or smartlinks, if available). My hypothesis is, still, that 2 guns is harder than 1, 2 targets is much harder than 1, and that more dots is always better. If you have a different hypothesis, then we'll have to wait. But I'm not the one flipping out and calling the other a moron for disagreeing.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 15 2011, 05:39 AM

I agree with Yerameyahu in that the tech of the smartgun is doing a majority of the math or aiming... unless we're totally wrong on how it works.

I think that's the issue. HOW is the smartgun system helping? What does the guncam, rangefinder, & other goodies actually do that net's the IG +2 bonus? I would like to know. A nice piece of fluff would help clarify matters. Again, as you said, how sensor suites work on a guncam is mind boggling.

All this talk has made me wanna go out again, find an arcade & practice my dual wielding/shooting skills.

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Oct 15 2011, 05:48 AM

The smartgun is doing fuck-all about aiming. It's not moving your weapon in any way, shape, or form. It's simply predicting where the bullet will hit once you pull the trigger based upon available information. That's it. Unlike, for example, a laser sight that's just a straight beam of light. It doesn't take into account range, weather conditions, visibility, or any other data. It's dumb. A smartlink isn't. But it's not a bloody AI, nor does it make your weapon an independent drone of some kind.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 05:52 AM

I didn't say aiming. It's doing the ballistics to predict where the bullet hits. That's a pretty huge help, and we can thank Mr. Smartlink for giving us *that* much. Exactly as Ol' Scratch said, it's just a smarter laser sight.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 05:55 AM

A hypothesis is an educated guess. There's no education in your guess. You asked me to provide some kind of links to the facts about how human vision works. I did, and you ignored it. You've countered with....well, jack. Just more excuses. I'm not trying to be mean here, but it's annoying to talk to someone who is so obviously wrong and so incredibly unwilling to think about what they're saying for even one second.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 15 2011, 06:00 AM

What about using only 1 Weapon with 1 Smartlink instead of 2 ?
(adding +2 Dice to only 1 of the splitted Pools ?)

with a singular Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:04 AM

JC: It's kind of amazing how every single thing you say is a disagreement, even extending to facts like 'what was said in the preceding post'.

That's not a great definition of hypothesis, but let's roll with it anyway. The 'education' in my guess is that 0 dots is worse than 1 dot. Lacking any clear data about other dot configurations, I'm going with the proposed trend 'more dots is better' (an oversimplified statement here, but for the sake of brevity…). Perhaps it is wrong, but it's far from 'so obviously wrong'.

I didn't ask for any links of any kind, as I said. I asked for you to be specific. Linking to a wikipedia page isn't really specific.

What excuses?

This 'so incredibly unwilling to think about what they're saying for even one second' business is just a florid insult. There's no reason to assume I'm not thinking about what I'm saying every second, except of course your own incredulity.

--
Yeah, Medicineman, that scenario does *not* work by RAW. The reason behind it is unclear.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 06:09 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


Or, as I like to call it, an educated guess. So now that we've established that your expertise lies outside of both science and english, can we move on to your next deflection?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:12 AM

Honestly now. That definition does not match what you 'like to call it', which is exactly what I said. And, if you'll look closely, I moved on in that same sentence, accepting your definition anyway. Ironically, your post is the deflection, because it ignores the majority of mine.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 15 2011, 06:13 AM

My Post was Kinda like a solution for Miri's "problem"
It might be a workable Houserule if the Players Happiness depends on playing a Akimbo Gunbunny with dual Smartlinks

with a Happy Dance
Medicineman

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:15 AM

Medicineman, I dig. That makes sense, because it *doesn't* make tons of sense for the single smartlink/laser to stop helping entirely… and it partially solves the metagame problem that you mention. I'm still shocked at the idea that someone would scrap a whole character over a +2, myself. … Also, I kinda expected a One-Legged Dance or something.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 06:22 AM

You mean the post that still doesn't address the fact that you were wrong about how human vision works? You've been deflecting for two pages now.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:25 AM

*sigh* What way are you now talking about? It's hard to tell because all you ever say is 'you're wrong about how human vision works'. I don't think I ever took a position on human vision at all.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 06:35 AM

Your argument makes no sense, given the way that human vision works. As I've repeated over and over again, you cannot apply the necessary level of focus for aiming a goddamn firearm to two separate points in your field of vision at the same time.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:42 AM

And I'm not asking anyone to do so. More precisely, *I'm* not asking them. They're already doing it of their own free will, because they're the ones who want to use the Multiple Target option in the RAW. This happens with or without lasers/smartlinks. I'm not the one who put that rule in the game; if you wanna say that it's impossible, that's a fine house rule. I'm only saying that, given they're already doing this, I don't expect the smartlink to have no effect (the RAW). At minimum, I'd expect it to help on one target (as Medicineman sorta suggested, and I mentioned earlier). (For completeness, I am of course fine with the RAW from a balance POV in this case; I'd also prefer the Multi-Target penalty be *worse*.)

In the case of *single* target, there are not two separate points. There's one point. At no time did I suggest that your eyes are following the little dots as they swing up from the left and right, but *when* they get into your focus, why wouldn't they help? When someone uses 1 gun with a laser sight, they do not follow the dot with their gaze for the entire trip from their feet to the target. They swing the 'goddamn firearm' up into the ballpark, and then correct (as always, apologies for slangy terminology, gun guys!).

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 15 2011, 06:47 AM

I still like the idea of a houseruled super-expensive Deltaware smartlink that allows for the use of 2 smartlinks for dual wielding pistols. Or at least, takes away the penalty for dual wielding.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 06:47 AM

Eh. I happen to agree with Yerameyahu about smartlink and two-guns-on-one-target.

He is NOT saying the full Smartlink bonus should apply, nor is he saying your ability to aim would be just as good. In both cases there should be some negative effect.

But aiming two-guns-on-one-target WITH smartlink should be somewhat easier than aiming two-guns-on-one-target WITHOUT Smartlink. That was his point.

I find that opinion perfectly reasonable. It is NOT silly to suggest that 'something' might be better than 'nothing'.

Hm. Maybe add the ability to use the Smartlink in dual-wielding to the Mark 74 Smartlink from WAR. At least then it'd actually have some purpose, instead of supposedly being 'special' since it can do friend-or-foe identification that normal smartlinks can't... oh wait, yes they can.

The bit about "it's not dots it's crosshairs" made me laugh, though. Mostly because I can't see why that distinction matters. Even today you can have as your sighting reticule dots, crosshairs, circles, hell, even smiley faces. I'm sure by 2070 they might have a few other options. None of which really matter to the discussion at hand. Two aim points are two aim points, regardless of their form.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 06:52 AM

That's always cool, Saint Hallow. If I may, though: the grade typically doesn't affect the effect. A Deltaware Synaptic Booster is the same as a Basic one. I'm assuming that you just mean that it's a pre-market prototype kind of thing, though? Honestly, I'd consider this tame enough to be a moderately-priced 'normal' item, myself. Niche market.

Posted by: crash2029 Oct 15 2011, 08:04 AM

@Yerameyahu-
Thanks for answering my question.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 15 2011, 01:27 PM

I have actually done that a couple of times, the result weren't that good, but i'm one hundred percent sure that they would have been even worse if the game didn't have those reticules on the screen.
Witch ofcource has always been the point of my comment, along with correcting Jonathan C:s misconception about smartguns being fired thought the gun cam as SOP.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 02:36 PM

Not all of those games have reticles on screen; you can still adjust your aim based on where the bullet impacts are. Seeing as you aren't taking the time to properly aim either way when you're double-gunning, the reticle would have been irrelevant.

Posted by: Miri Oct 15 2011, 02:39 PM

For all of you arguing that the human mind and body is not capable of following the two separate (or apparently single target with both guns trained on it) targets. The Adept in question was Ambidextrous and had Multi-tasking. So yes, this particular character was in fact able to follow two different targets that were in line of sight without any issue and when his brain told his left arm to do something there was no chance of crossed wires and his right arm starting then stopping and the left arm doing as it was told. Also note, this is an AWAKENED character and a highly skilled (had rank 5 Pistols, specialization and two ranks of Adept power Improved Ability Pistols) one at that in his chosen weapon, he was not a mundane normal unaugmented character.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 02:42 PM

Um, JonathanC, doesn't that mean that the impacts you're using are just cruddy reticules? And having to miss several times seems like the definition of "i'm one hundred percent sure that they would have been even worse if the game didn't have those reticules on the screen."

While that's not at all what that power is for, Miri, yes, being magic-awesome clearly is different. Still, this issue applies to everyone. It might be a good idea to add a house rule edit for that power though: "Unlike mere mortals, adepts with this power *can* do X."

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 02:51 PM

Two things:

1. Even on a single target, you'd still be visually aiming two separate points.
2. Multi-tasking allows your mind to do two things at once, yes. That solves half of the problem. The other half of the problem relates to (god I'm tired of repeating this) the nature of human eyesight. Within your entire field of vision, there is only a tiny part of it that you have full visual acuity in. It's called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveal. That's why everyone who has tried to dual-wield in a light gun game had such bad luck; you weren't actually aiming two guns at once; you were switching between the two, making minor adjustments. And your limited success was due more to the fact that enemies in light gun games are designed to be shot, rather than the existence of a reticle.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 02:54 PM

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything dumber, you prove me wrong. If bullet impacts count as reticles, then you should always be getting smartgun bonuses, whether you have a smartgun or not.



How exactly does failing in the same way that you would without reticles prove that the reticles provide a significant bonus?

Posted by: Miri Oct 15 2011, 02:59 PM

When was the last time you looked at an eye chart from the medical diagnosis distance? When you read line 1 does line 2 and below suddenly disappear? I would wager it does not, and I would wager that unless your target is less then point blank range (one to two arms length) that the focal point of your Foveal will in fact encompass both smartgun dots. With enough physical training and muscle memory you can train yourself to point both guns at one point.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:00 PM

Always so insulting. I thought it was obvious, but I was talking (as were you) about bullet impacts *on screen in the arcade game*. If you're judging your aim by the colorful 'splash' images on the screen, that's like a cruddy version of the colorful 'reticule' images on the screen. (I thought it went without saying, but reality offers no such 'impact' cues, though you can use tracers with automatics… shockingly, they provide a similar bonus.)

Mäx's statement is that it would be worse, which is the opposite of "failing in the same way". Maybe he's wrong, but that's what he said.

Nope.
Also, I'm curious about the difference in focus between an arcade game (flat screen, a few feet away) and the reality (3D world, at least yards away). (Exactly, Miri.)

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:11 PM

When was the last time you tried to read both lines on the eye chart at the same time?

Posted by: Miri Oct 15 2011, 03:14 PM

I don't need to. I just have to have the (single) target in view and both smartgun dots in a hand sized grouping on the targets chest. Fine focus is not needed for this, just enough information for the brain to know where the target is and where both dots are, if they are next to each other and center of mass then excellent. Pull the triggers.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:14 PM

Nope what? What is this nope based on? What is your argument for nope? I'm willing to let this go and just write you off, since you haven't bothered to make any kind of logical point in 4 pages.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:19 PM

I've addressed that exact point 3 times. You are not being asked to focus on two separate points at once (in the single-target scenario); you are focusing on one target the whole time. (Exactly *again*, Miri. )

And in the multi-target scenario, you were *already* trying to do so with or without the smartlinks/lasers, so it's hardly their fault. They can't hurt you.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:26 PM

The "two points" in question aren't the targets, they're the "points" that you are aiming at. Your eyes will naturally swap from one point to the other while you're aiming. This is distracting enough to make playing a light gun game (in which the targets are barely shooting at you and are standing there waiting to be shot) extremely difficult; in an actual combat situation you'd be killed trying this idiocy.

Posted by: Miri Oct 15 2011, 03:29 PM

Well two things. It is a good thing I am not in fact doing this in real life or a combat situation and this is in fact also a game.

I would also appreciate it if you would lay off the 'idiots' and 'are you stupids'. It makes your tone of voice and posts feel very combative.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 03:30 PM

Your area of acute vision is indeed limited to a "tiny part" of about 15 degrees.

Funny thing. When you're aiming two Smartguns at the same target, the targeting dots are BOTH GOING TO BE IN THAT TINY PART.

And it is in fact possible to hold a discussion without resorting to insults and personal attacks. As a point, they usually WEAKEN your argument, not make it stronger, because now instead of focusing on the subject people start focusing on the insults. If nothing else, many folks are likely to start wondering if the insulting party is perhaps a juvenile, and thus assign less importance to what they say as a result. No, it's not a rational reaction, but it is an inevitable one.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 03:31 PM

We're tired of you repeating it, too. You're not looking at (focusing on) the dots. You're looking at the target. Dots are bright, salient, and crucially don't need to be focused on.

Actually, the funny thing is that not even Multiple Targets requires dual *simultaneous* focus; there's no facing in SR, and no requirement that the two targets not be, say, directly to your right and left. Very John Woo, which is presumably where the penalty comes from (though, again, I'd kinda like it bigger). Anyway, the argument is the same: if you're firing two guns straight left and straight right, I bet smartlink/laser dots help.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 03:59 PM

I want you to try something. Go hunting, and just stare at some deer. Don't bother paying attention to where you want to shoot them, just stare at the deer, pull the trigger, and hope for the best. Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by: Miri Oct 15 2011, 04:02 PM

Does my gun have a laser pointer since we don't have the tech for smartgun links? Cause I can assure you, if I am staring at that deer then I can also see the laser point skittering all around on its body and so I have a pretty good idea of where the round is going to land.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 04:05 PM

I have. If I've got my laser sight, I don't really need to be even looking down the barrel to aim.

"Bullet goes where the red dot glows", and all that.




-k

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:05 PM

Fine; I've edited the posts out of respect for your delicate sensibilities. And yeah, fine, you're right.


Clearly the rulebook is wrong, and Yerameyahu is right. Forget about real-world shooting, game balance, sensible game mechanics, or any factor other than the fact that Yerameyahu says so: dual-wielding with smartlinks should give you +4 dice, and everybody should be doing it.


Happy now?

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:06 PM

Have you tried it with two laser sights? Apparently anything that works with one works twice as well with two. I can't wait to try driving two cars at once. I'm pretty sure if I hook up two separate GPS machines, I'll be fine.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:08 PM

Why do you have to lie with every post? I didn't say anything like that ("Clearly the rulebook is wrong, and Yerameyahu is right. Forget about real-world shooting, game balance, sensible game mechanics, or any factor other than the fact that Yerameyahu says so: dual-wielding with smartlinks should give you +4 dice, and everybody should be doing it."). In fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 04:08 PM

Hyperbole much?

All he was saying is that the Smartlink bonus should not be COMPLETELY negated. That having a Smartlink should be slightly better than NOT having a Smartlink.



Well, hold on, I'll try it at the range this afternoon.

I suspect that hitting the target with two pistols WITH the laser sights is going to be easier than shooting two pistols WITHOUT the laser sights, though.



-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:14 PM

Ooh, record the data, would you? Also, do trials of 1 gun, 2 gun; 1 target, 2 targets; and 0, 1, 2 lasers. Not the most rigorous design ever, but hey. Hope you have plenty of ammo.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:15 PM

No no, I understand now. Bonuses for everyone. I'm pretty sure you should be able to tape another two smartguns to your existing smartgun...twice the bullets! And +8 dice on that firearms test, since more targeting reticles = more targeting!

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:16 PM

Uh oh, he's snapped. Just for the sake of completeness, I'll re-repeat that I've never said anything like that.

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 04:18 PM

So it doesn't matter if I agree with you or not, whatever I say you'll just say the opposite? Awesome.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:20 PM

You're not agreeing with me. You're quite childishly mocking a straw man of my position. Lying about my statements has been your running theme, but this is a new and interesting turn.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 04:20 PM

Hyperbole is not a valid argument.




-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 04:24 PM

Ha, Karma, that made me think of the Argument Clinic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y , if anyone hasn't had the pleasure), which actually explains this whole thread: we wandered into the room for Abuse by mistake!

Posted by: Mäx Oct 15 2011, 05:03 PM

Just ignore the Troll, your life will be easier, as he has very clearly show that he's nothing but that with his latest half a dozen or so post

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 05:22 PM

Just so I have this clear, "lying" is defined as:

- Disagreeing with you.
- Agreeing with you.

So no matter what I said, I'm "lying", as far as you're concerned? Good to know. And to think you guys were accusing me of resorting to ad-hominem attacks. I guess "liar" is the new "idiot", eh?

Posted by: Mäx Oct 15 2011, 05:31 PM

Nope, lying is quite clearly defined as claiming that someone else said something that they didn't say, witch you have done multiple times in this thread.
Yes,yes i know what i said, but i had to reply to this.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 15 2011, 05:36 PM

JC, do you honestly believe people do not see what you are doing?

Taking some small piece of what people say, extrapolating and blowing it completely out of proportion so it is a mere silly caricature of what they actually said, and then agreeing with that twisted version?

It's called a "straw man" argument. And it holds no water at all.

Anyway, heading out. I'll let ya'll know what I find regarding the laser sights.



-k

Posted by: JonathanC Oct 15 2011, 06:01 PM

Examples?

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 15 2011, 08:32 PM

What the...

big fuss for a simple topic.

I can provide anecdotal evidence that rail shooters with two light guns (actually the Wii derivative thereof, where actually aiming the gun via the the sights alone does NOT work) are most definitely possible/easier with crosshairs. In fact, you can aim at two close targets - albeit slow-moving targets, or at one.
What's also possible is keeping up shooting at one target and them aquiring another one with a quick shift of one of the crosshairs. Actually aiming at two small or rapidly moving targets does not seem to work too well - but then that's not even a given with just one crosshair.

Obviously you can't actually focus at two points on the screen at the same time. However, in SR you obviously CAN, or else you could never even try shooting at two targets simultaneously.

Now I want to add one more thing: I think the disallowing of smartguns for akimbo guns is largely a historical thing: In the past, and I can only speak for SR3, the smartlink gave a HUGE boost to to-hit probability. -2 to TN was MUCH bigger than +2 dice. So this would clearly have created balance issues if people had been able to fire two guns at a TN of 2, which was the base TN for smartgun at close range. At this point I think that +2 dice isn't that big of a deal, and I for one would not be opposed to house-ruling this.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 15 2011, 10:28 PM

I'm not touching any of these other questions, about rules, about game balance, about the capabilities of the human brain, about multiple targets, none of it. I'm just curious in answers from first principles:

If you had two weapons with rangefinders and gyros, and a ballistic computer with sufficient power to make two sets of computations, could such a system project two - perhaps visually distinct - targeting reticles onto the user's view, each of which is an accurate representation of the destination of a bullet fired from each weapon? If it can, can these reticles always appear to be in focus, if you have direct access to the user's brain?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 15 2011, 10:59 PM

The answer is 'totally yes' to the first part. Second part: based on tech like the eyeband, my thought is that the tech doesn't exist to have more than the natural 'brain focus'. But, it shouldn't matter for this question.

Posted by: 3278 Oct 15 2011, 11:42 PM

It seems to me there are three kinds of focus that would be topical here.

1. Concentration: the ability to usefully do something with more than one simultaneous stimulus.
2. Foveal: of or pertaining to increased visual acuity in the center of the visual field
3. Optical: the focusing of light into a distinct image.

The ability to usefully concentrate on more than one visual stimulus isn't something a smartlink does, or is intended to do. You could argue that there are some augmentations that might serve that purpose, but that's beyond the scope of our inquiry for the moment.

I have no idea what cybereyes would do to foveal focus; we talk a lot about sensory overload and such, but the fact is that the brain is very plastic, and it'll adjust to a broad spectrum of alterations.* That said, I don't think foveal focus matters much in this case, unless you're trying to target two individual targets not within the center of your vision, and as you've pointed out, that's hard irrespective of the smartlink.

Optically, I don't see where it would be a problem for people with cybereyes, because the signal from the image link is going to be dropped into the data stream long after the optical data, anyway. So you should be able to have a set of razor-sharp dots, or crosshairs, or fuzzy slippers, in whatever colors, blinking whatever pattern, dancing whatever polka you'd like, as far as that goes. As far as shades and goggles go, well, that's an optical focus issue, but that's the same optical focus issue you'd have with one smartlink, and the same optical focus issue you have with scopes today.


I'll confess I'm not certain how any of this could matter at all. The smartlink, in my understanding, is nothing but a ballistic computer and a rangefinder [and other senses if you'd like; there's no reason not to allow such a thing], which figures out where, if you pulled the trigger right now, a bullet would end up, like a laser pointer with a rangefinder and a servo on it, constantly adjusting trigonometry. And only you can see it. Does everyone agree that's what the experience is like? I read some stuff upthread about cameras and two video feeds, so I'm not sure my understanding of the hardware is the same as everyone else's.

*Build yourself a set of goggles with cameras on them, but with the image inverted, so that when you look through the goggles, everything you see is upside-down. Blacken the windows in your bedroom, and see nothing without the goggles for, say, a week or two. You'll find very quickly - like, crazy quickly - that you'll stop noticing the goggles, and your view won't be inverted, because [as I'm sure you know] the goggles are just undoing the brain's inversion of our visual input. Take the goggles off after a couple of weeks, and you'll be again stuck with inverted vision, until the brain re-orients itself. My point being, I don't have any difficulty with the concept that, with cybereyes not having a foveal acuity increase, the human mind could deal with having no "periphery," and would do just fine. I, for one, wouldn't mind being able to read without looking right the hell at things. Anyway.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 12:37 AM

Sure, but we do know that in SR, it doesn't work. Eyeband, etc. For some reason, blah.

I agree it'd be awesome, and sounds at least plausible. At minimum, people would run around with a net of cameras and trodes.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 16 2011, 05:38 AM

So, I tried out paired pistols with laser sights at the range today. Fortunately the range owner is a friend so he humored me.

Firing a 9mm Glock 17 and a Taurus PT840 .40, each with lasers and properly sighted in, at a 10 yard range at human-shaped paper targets spaced 20 feet apart:

2 targets, 2 pistols, no lasers: Damn that's difficult. I ended up really focusing on one and then the other much of the time, really. Missed most shots.
2 targets, 2 pistols, with lasers: Easier but still a pain. I could get some body shots on both targets but any more precision (like specific body areas) was about impossible.

1 target, 2 pistols, no lasers: Moderately difficult as sighting down the barrels of two pistols required more things to keep track of than usual. Missed a number of shots.
1 target, 2 pistols, with lasers: Again, easier. I could consistently group within a one foot circle. Which is much worse that my usual single-pistol groupings, but hey.

Each test was performed with 6-8 shots per pistol.

Really, my biggest observation is that when firing with iron sights, you have to keep track of at least three objects, the rear sight, the front sight, and the target. To hit you need to line up all three. With the laser sight you only have to keep track of two, the laser dot and the target. Aiming using laser sight is almost instinctive, rather than the conscious thought that goes into lining up iron sights.

In all cases, shooting with the laser sight was easier than shooting without the laser.

That was a fun twenty bucks worth of ammo to spend.



-k

Posted by: CanRay Oct 16 2011, 05:43 AM

Damn I wish I could go shooting...

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 16 2011, 05:47 AM

I wish I owned those pistols! I borrowed them from the range owner.

I used to live in Texas, Land of the Gun, and had about a half dozen firearms while there. I eventually moved to New York, where They Hate Guns. So I had to sell most of them before I moved. Kept just the shotgun because that is much easier to get a license for in NY.





-k

Posted by: CanRay Oct 16 2011, 05:58 AM

OUCH! Is it just major cities, or is it something cultural?

'Course, then again, they shut down my old school because someone didn't find all the sticks of dynamite while prospecting on the weekend and it rolled out from under the seat when he parked the car.

Still trying to figure out why my hometown has a SWAT team.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 16 2011, 07:12 AM

NY (& mainly NYC) is very anti-gun due to history & age of the place. I live in NYC, & getting a pistol/handgun license is a trial & a half. Rifles are a little easier. I think (and this is all my own perspective & skewed recollection of history) that Texas loves guns due they had a wonderful working relationship with guns in it's past. Texas was a wilderness/territory that needed pacification & civilization. The gun was a tool for that purpose. NY doesn't have that. NY was already a major metro hub of cities & such, there was no need to own a weapon, except for self protection. However, most of the people who owned/used guns weren't "law abiding" folk, so gun violence & criminality was much more common.

Posted by: Seriously Mike Oct 16 2011, 01:10 PM

Wait, so it IS possible without being a celebrity and/or the commissioner's friend?

Posted by: 3278 Oct 16 2011, 01:52 PM

For what it's worth, your experiences match those of police officer and experienced shooter who did the same test probably almost a decade ago when this issue was brought up here. He also remarked that it'd be somewhat easier to do both independent and paired shooting if the reticles were different colors and/or shapes. The consensus at the time was that it was independent targeting, not paired reticles, that made shooting akimbo difficult, and that penalties for shooting akimbo should be high, while penalties for using two smartlinks should be low. Clearly someone's opinion wasn't swayed when SR4 was written.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 02:37 PM

Yay! Thanks for that cool work, KarmaInferno.

Posted by: Snow_Fox Oct 16 2011, 03:07 PM

NY is hard on hand guns, you haveto have a reason for carrying it beyond 'self defense.' I know a dentist who has a caryr permit because he has large amounts of drugs in his office. Long arms are fine, outside of NYC. But it is easy to get booze.
By comparrison, Pennsylvania where I live is much more gun friendly but it is harder to get a drink. My conclusion is that NY would rather you be drunk than armed, PA would rather you be armed than drunk. I'm a New Yorker.

That having been said the problem in the thread- using two weapons each with targeting aids is not the system it's the soft squishy bit between the shooters ears. Just imagine it, you have two dots on the target, but which dot is which gun? Sure it's easy to think - one on the right is the right gun, one on the left is the left gun. But what if the beams crossed? What if one's too high and the other's too low. you can spend a momment playing with it to test- jiggle the right hand and see what dot moves, BUT all that takes time and while you're playing with the laser the guy you're pointing it at is going to be shooting back at you, sending lead back down the beams while you're still playing with the fine tuning.

speaking personally and having read Wyatt Earp, shooting two guns at once is not going to be accurate and is just flashing, supression fire at most. aiming at anything bigger than a crowded street or a body on the floor before you, you're not going to hit by skill but just dumb luck.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 03:20 PM

I've been assuming the reticules are different (color or otherwise). You can have different lasers, and smartlink output is AR—that can be literally anything.

I agree: akimbo should not be a normal tactic for hitting things with bullets. Truly exceptional people can do it (in SR!), if the situation isn't too crazy, because that's cinematic.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 16 2011, 03:31 PM

Without knowing too many facts I guess there is a history of actually using a gun in each hand - it stems from the time of muzzle-loaded pistols. Even in the age of revolvers, the main reason would be more ammo - if you're reasonably ambidextrous, lining up your left and right hand - independantly and not simultaneously, probably each time supporting with the other arm - shouldn't be that different. But that's a long way from firing Hardboiled style.

I keep coming back to the initial answer to this question: It's a balance thing. If the authors had thought it ok to shoot two weapons simultaneously with smartguns, then they would have made it possible. Simple as that. It's Scifi where you can boost your brain power with cyber- or bioware. Changing the visual cortex to something akin to a Chameleon to independantly move and focus - and interpret - either eye should be a simple enough task. You don't even need 3D vision when using a smartlink, because that's what the rangefinder and ballistic computer is for. From an evolutionary perspective, eyes with overlapping 3D vision are a thing of the predators, whereas a wide field of view which is largely not three-dimensional is common among herbivores. So the reason to even have a foveal is to accurately aquire your prey. But you don't need that when you have a computer to do the distances for you. You could even have two mini-cameras in each cybereye so that each cybereye produces an independant 3D image. It's a question of game design that we don't have this.

It's really the same as drones not being able to track multiple targets and fire two or more weapons simultaneously - you don't want that to happen, because it tends to make hamburgers of people really easily.

So really the only problem I'm seeing with the rules as they are is that the writers ignore stuff already in the game in order to enforce their balance policy. You can't argue realism, but you CAN argue game-world consistency, where it just doesn't make sense that you can't paint two dots, and therefore make it easier than without dots.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 03:44 PM

But, you could easily keep those bonuses and increase the penalties for 'akimbo' (I hate calling it that, but it's so much easier to type). Net result: same or better.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 16 2011, 04:39 PM

Rural Canada: Drunk and Well-armed!

And you might even have the ancestral distillery dating back from Prohibition.

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 16 2011, 04:56 PM

*Skips last two pages*

Alright guys.

Here's the deal.

If you have two red dots, each controlled by one hand.

And they're both dead center aimed at something, and one hand slips a little and the dot moves off target.

Which hand do you have to move to get it back on target?

The one that slipped, but seeing two red dots out in the field, you don't know which one is which.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 16 2011, 04:59 PM

Except that I would say that is exactly the end result of what they did. You argued for a -2/-4 mechanic earlier (Primary/Secondary), and allowing the Smartlinked shooter the use of his/her Smartgun. This results in +0/-2, which is EXACTLY what we have now. So why go through all the math (some people HATE math with a passion) when it works out the exact same way. Disallowing Smartlink Bonuses and applying a -2 to second target is Identical to your suggestion in result.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 16 2011, 05:00 PM

You don't have to be a total and utter moron and use two dots that are same color.
Even currently Lasers sight are available in colors other then red.
And the smartlinks hit indicator can be what ever you want it to be.

Except for people who only have a laser pointers or not even those

Posted by: 3278 Oct 16 2011, 05:07 PM

Probably shouldn't have skipped the last two pages. This was discussed rather a lot therein.

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 16 2011, 05:07 PM

Having played a vertically scrolling shooter that has hot-seat coop (like an arcade game) that can detect multiple mice, I plugged two in (this was some time ago). Each "player" is a different color.

Blue was left hand, green was right hand.

I still flew into things because I moved the wrong mouse.

It's really frakking difficult especially in the heat of combat.

Oh, did I mention that the game was running slow because I was doing it on my laptop, not my desktop?

So despite running at 1/10th it's normal speed I was still flying into things. Using only 1 hand (and 1 ship) I can beat the hardest difficulties without dying at that speed (and the ships are One Hit Point Wonders).

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 16 2011, 05:07 PM

True, which is why I prefer the rule as it is. It gets rid of all the mumbo jumbo. I am okay with the fact (in game) that you cannot use Smartguns or Laser Sights/Red Dots/etc. to add dice pool creep to something that is inherently impossible (in game - specifically the use of such devices to aid in guns akimbo) to accomplish in the first place. I have yet to see it cripple a well built gunbunny (and in fact reigns them in a bit), and am okay with it crippling a poorly built one. It should not be your go-to tactic.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 16 2011, 05:14 PM

But that's the real beauty of his solution, there's absolutely no dicepool creep(those who don't have smartlink actually lose dice), just a more consistant set of rules without tech that magically stops working if you try to use it for certain purpose.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 16 2011, 05:17 PM

There IS dice pool creep (you get more dice for Sual weilding than you would have originally).
And Dual weilding already looses a ton of dice. You go from a Gunbunny with 18 Dice on a target, to gunbunny taking 2 shots at 9/7 dice on a target, you have lost 9/11 dice (and though you do get to shoot twice, both shots will be far, far less effective than that single shot would have been). In fact, you lose more dice (20) than your total original pool actually had (18) in the first place.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 05:17 PM

TJ, … I think Mäx handled it. It's consistent and no balance change, except more 'realistically' bad on the tech-less. And it's *not* more math, because you never have to add/remove the smartlink. It just stays put.

Akimbo *should* lose tons of dice. So? Again, rejiggering the smartlink regulation doesn't alter that. Again, I'm definitely not in favor of akimbo (period), and I'm not suggesting this as a 'fix' for boo-hoo gunbunnies. It's purely about consistency.

Draco18s, again, it's not that it's easy with two dot colors. It's that it's easier than *zero* dots.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 16 2011, 05:22 PM

Where?
Dice pool of 20 as example, both guns have smartlink:
Current system:
One target 10 dice per gun, two targets 10 for first and 8(10 -2 for second target) for second
his sytem:
One target 10 dice per gun, two targets 10(10+2-2) for first and 8(10+2-4) for second

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 05:25 PM

If there's creep, just change the numbers. My -2/-4 was more a D&D analogy than anything else. You might want to add a penalty for akimbo in general, though the whole Ambidextrous ecosystem pretty well has that covered?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 16 2011, 05:38 PM

The Penalty to Guns Akimbo is a Split Dice pool. That already exists.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 05:53 PM

And obviously I know that, and I know *you* know that, which is why I didn't mention it again. So, if you'd assume that I'm not dumb, you'd conclude that I'm talking about a penalty to offset the smartlink in akimbo 1-target situations. Because adding it gives +2/+2 in that case, which is not necessarily desirable.

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 16 2011, 06:00 PM

If you're aiming at the same target, maybe. But I see that distinction as being a rules-wise game balance thing.

(If it works for a single target, why not two guys standing next to each other? And if works for that, why not two guys 30 meters away from each other?)

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 06:04 PM

It does. Having the dots is easier than not having them, for 1 or 2 targets. (Is my claim.)

It's just that there's no chance of confusion with 2 targets, so we didn't mention the colors with them.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 16 2011, 06:13 PM

Is that the game that makes my head asplode because it fills the screen with colourful stuff that moves around all teh time and you have to avoid being hit while shooting in various directions? Ok, seriously, that's not really a good example. Because even with one mouse it gives you freaking eye cancer. Try a hardish rail shooter like that one Resident Evil.

House of the Dead Overkill doesn't qualify, it's too easy. I played that with my girlfriend, and then by myself with two guns, and as bad as it sounds - my left hand was about as good as my g/f. Now... just don't quote that out of context .

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 06:36 PM

It's also not *quite* the same task as 'pull the dots to the target(s)', though definitely similar.

Posted by: Seerow Oct 16 2011, 06:38 PM

I hardly see how -that- is relevant to the topic.

Posted by: Draco18s Oct 16 2011, 06:39 PM

The ships I was using shot in a forward spread pattern. I couldn't handle any other kind. Admittedly, it was a ship I used singly as well (one other I've used allowed you to reorient your shots, but it isn't set up well, as you move in the direction you're trying to reaim for, both inputs being "mouse pointer").

The remaining two ship types were one that could make all of the shots it had on screen explode, but I never found it useful (the AoE isn't that big, plus it destroys ALL your shots on screen, causing a delay in having new shots hit your target) and one that fired charged shots. Hold right-click and release any time. Less useful that "hold right click and get a giant laser beam of death" that the spread ship had. More damage, probably, but more micromanagy.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 16 2011, 06:52 PM

The cable tv show, Top Shot had a dual pistol challenge. The competitors were having a super hard time of it. The point of smartgun technology is to make shooting easier or improve your accuracy. I think the thought of making the penalty of shooting akimbo or using 2 pistols on 1 target less, then that makes sense. Trying to use 2 pistols on 2 separate targets... no idea how the GM wants to do that.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 07:05 PM

In real life, there may indeed be some 'interaction' effects, but I'd still expect the lasers to help (if only a little, compared to the overall difficulty of the task).

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 16 2011, 07:25 PM

Yeah, houseruling based of my limited experiment, I would increase the difficulty of dual-pistols (perhaps drastically), but leave the Smartlink/laser bonuses.

And probably add in a "dual wield specialist" Quality to make it a bit easier for those who really want to be great at it.





-k

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 07:34 PM

Yeah. Possibly adapting the existing Ambidextrous/MA/etc. options, possibly adding new Quality/MA/Adept/'Ware options.

Posted by: Miri Oct 16 2011, 08:28 PM

A nonslavish interpretation of the rules to allow a player to build the character he wants to play and have fun? Whod a thunk it.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 16 2011, 09:29 PM

Jesus, Miri, how many times are you going to bang that drum? I still don't understand how you couldn't have fun playing the same character without 2 dice.

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 12:22 AM

We all heard you the first time, but the point remains that it's just a house rule (and one that was suggested several pages ago). It's not a "nonslavish interpretation," any more than a drug dealer is an "unlicensed pharmacist." There's nothing wrong with house rules, but let's call a spade a spade. And if some hypothetical player's entire notion of fun is entirely contingent upon whether or not he gets a house rule in his favor to give him 2 extra dice, I think I'd just as soon not play with them. You can make a frighteningly effective two-gun character without giving them smartlink bonuses, already. It's hardly squashing someone's hopes and dreams under the hobnailed boots of canon to enforce the existing rules. Folks can cheerfully choose not to, any given game table is certainly free to house rule things to their hearts' content, but you've got no real justification for your continued melodrama and hyperbole on this point.

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 01:18 AM

Yes. My GM was unwilling to devise some house rules to so that even though I could get my single gun single target pool up to a team average for primary skills of 16, two gunning it at 7/7 wasn't going to be very useful in combat. So I dumped the character.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 17 2011, 02:02 AM

Er, you are splitting the dice pool BEFORE adding modifiers, yes?




-k

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 02:09 AM

Mind if I ask the die pool breakdown? Smartlink (obviously), but what about specialization? Reflex recorder? Improved Ability? How'd you get your 16, and was the pool being divided properly for the 7/7, is basically my question.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 17 2011, 02:12 AM

I still don't understand anyway. You wanted to be as good as everyone else… with twice the guns at once? You can still *carry* 2 guns and fire them sequentially with the full 'necessary' DP. I'm just confused because I *know* you can build stupid-broken-good akimbo guys. If you wanted to. :/

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 02:57 AM

Skill 5
Specialization 2
Adapt Skill buff 2
Agility 5
Smartgun 2

So single gun single target 16
Two guns split pool no smartgun 7

When he said no I then thought.. well.. what about two different types of guns. So I looked at them and most all the heavy pistols were 5p with only very minor differences. I wanted one to shoot at typical targets and one to shoot those really big heavy things (9mm in one hand, .45 or .50 in the other so to speak). Doing a Light Pistol/Heavy Pistol seemed counterproductive because I couldn't really find any benefit to using a light pistol as my main shooter over a heavy. So then I made Bruce Lee's 10x great grandson named Jim Crow with Martial Arts 6, specialization and adapt skill buff with Magic 6 Edge 7.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 17 2011, 03:21 AM

But still, 2 things: 1) Would 9/9 have been playable where 7/7 wasn't? 2) You use your whole DP unless you're firing the guns *at once*, so just… don't do that?

There is a small benefit from using like a Super Warhawk in one hand, and a normal heavy pistol in the other (ammo, rate of fire).

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 03:55 AM

Not quite. You would be well served -- next time your whole character concept hinges on 2 dice, I mean -- to read over how splitting a die pool works, very carefully. Quite a few bonus dice are added after the core die pool (stat + skill) gets divided. Funny story here, but you were actually already sitting on the 9/9 split you wanted so desperately, without the GM needing to house rule anything in your favor. You just didn't know it.


1) You're off by several generations.

2) That's either one of the best, or one of the worst, character names I've ever seen, depending on how historically and politically aware you and the rest of your gaming group are. I'm thinking one of the worst, especially given how you described the character and that there seemed to be little irony to it.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 17 2011, 04:06 AM

I dunno, it sounds like a particularly on-the-chin blaxploitation parody, like Black Dynamite. Could be fun. As much as any Edge 7 character can be fun at all.

Posted by: CanRay Oct 17 2011, 04:37 AM

"Quiet, you'll wake the other Slitches."

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 04:39 AM

Oh the entire group was quite familiar with the background of that name, we do live in Southern Louisiana after all. We had lots of fun with my character Jim and his martial arts sensai (advantage points spent for it..) Uncle Tom (they picked that name for him.. I was just going to leave his as the little short old martial arts teacher from Remo Williams: The Adventure begins.

He had two enemy traits.. one was a rival martial arts dojo. They made two appearances. The first time me and the ultra paranoid hacker convinced them that I was an honorable man and sent the large group of them to meet us at a warehouse to fight out our issues after we dropped off the kidnap victim we had just rescued. From said warehouse where I had just gotten done with beating the stuffing out of the gang's second in command.

The second time we ran into them we had just picked up a very hot package at SeaTac and had almost made it out of the airport when 4 of the rival dojo members showed up at the car pickup place where we were. They did the whole 'Hey You! We're here to kick your ass!' thing (in japanese of course so the vast majority of the people in the crowd had no idea what they said). We pulled the whole "look out! they have guns!" and scattered while Lone Star dealt with them. Later on after we got accused of being WMD terrorists we managed to arrange a meet with the head of Lone Star and worked out a deal where he could look good in the news by 'catching' the terrorists and even talked him into using the four guys they had picked up not too long ago.

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 04:46 AM

Twas my first character since like.. second edition? (late 90s college game.. that one fell apart not long after the GM gave us a crate full of grenades..) in our first run of the 4th edition rule set. Jim had many many build mistakes in him as did most everyone else. Even the GM was new to the system.

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 04:51 AM

So despite never having played the character (to see how valid the build was), and despite having discarded the character (due to a rules misunderstanding), and despite having fun with your replacement character...you've still got enough of a chip on your shoulder about this two-gun-smartlink thing to be as negative and generally crabby about it as you have been in this thread (to the extent you repeatedly refer to playing by the game rules, that you didn't get right, as "slavish loyalty")?

I'm really not meaning to outright dogpile you here or anything, man, but it all strikes me as a little weird. Maybe you didn't mean to come off with that kind of attitude in your handful of posts earlier in this thread, but...just...yeah. Weird. I'm glad you ended up having fun with your replacement character, at any rate.

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 04:57 AM

Getting upset about an argument over the intertubes on a forum is.. well just silly. Maybe I've got a bit of a troll in me and just like poking buttons and seeing some of yall get all riled up. I was really hoping JC had gone off about my comment in that Strawberry Shortcake Orc thread cause he seems the most excitable right now

Edit: Besides.. look at how much discussion, both on topic and off, about the pros and cons of Akimbo style and two guns on one target has gone on

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 17 2011, 05:15 AM

This is on the level of the old D&D 3.0/3.5/3.75 debate about dual wielding DPS vs Power Attack with 2Handed weapons vs Sword & Board style.

Thar's why ranger's got changed, because of the front-loading of their fighting ability & sheer damage output. Dual Wielding in the game was nasty... with constant DPS flowing. Here in SR, dual wielding firearms isn't as bad. The penalties to hit vs the damage potential are mitigated. Plus any bonus you do have to shooting also gets cut.

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 05:27 AM

So just trolling then. Okay.

Posted by: Miri Oct 17 2011, 05:30 AM

Trolling to get a discussion going. Lots of number crunching, peoples real life experience, etc etc.

Posted by: Critias Oct 17 2011, 05:48 AM

I...don't see how you think much of that came about from your posts, in particular, especially the ones that consisted only of you misunderstanding the rules and then deriding others for not houseruling things. But, well, okay. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. Your most memorable contributions to this thread seemed a bit less constructive than that, to me, but I'm not a mod so it's a moot point.

Posted by: Saint Hallow Oct 17 2011, 07:27 AM

I can see dual wielding machine pistols/smg's to get the same amount of fire as an assault rifle. Not damage... just bullet spraying. Blanketing an area or doing wide, crazy bursts so you give covering fire.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 17 2011, 08:50 AM

Naw, you do it for two long bursts per round (and no other bursts). Which is also a just semi-unproblematic interpretation, as in, the rules are unclear but might allow that interpretation. At least that's how I remember it.

I'm still a friend of 2x Ruger Warhawks - you use full DP, look totally cool, and don't need to overmod the weapons to get SA fire. You do run into the usual problem that semi-auto has been gimped to death in SR4. You can't use it against any serious opposition, because a useless action (yours, semi-auto fire) and a second useless action (theirs, a full dodge) means no effect at all for the round - unless you get into huge attack DP territory. So after you've taken their action you can watch the full-auto mooks with half your DP, like drones and stuff, tear into them where your attacks just pinged because your base damage was simply soaked or got turned into some stun.



D&D and TWF is too much of a long story. As in, it went from being the done thing to being the crap option. So... that's a stupid fix. Also, you can hardly compare the systems. In D&D, basically a character who can only deal damage is fully functional, while in SR he's largely useless 90% of the time.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 17 2011, 02:56 PM

Ummmmm..... Semi Auto is NOT gimped. I kill more characters/Mooks with Semi Auto than with Full Automatic Weapons fire. Maybe you are just doing it wrong?

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 17 2011, 03:15 PM

If anything, I'd compare to short bursts. There's basically nothing SA can do that 3-round can't, +2. Except *not* waste pricey ammo.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 17 2011, 03:32 PM

Burst Fire is more noticeable, though, even if only in Fluff. I do agree that you could just use short Bursts. But then again, not all weapons are capable of such activity either, and it is a pretty pricey upgrade (Though I guess not to most shadowrunners, who tend to have money).

And the Ammo thing too...

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 17 2011, 03:58 PM

Ok... so.. what is there to do wrong? There are no decisions to make, it's just point and click, roll the dice.

Ok, maybe saying it's gimped is the wrong angle. It's just clearly inferior to everything else, as soon as you really want to take the guy down. I would tend to say the same thing: you can shoot more expensive ammo, but for that to be noticable, ammo costs should vary more. If S&S cost 200 or more per round people would really think about using it in an assault rifle or machine gun (at least one without an ammo selector), but I could put it in a handgun without as much as a thought. The same with APDS and the like.

Basically in my SR career I've liked to play a lot of semi-auto toting guys, and I can say that in SR4 I've been a bit frustrated while doing so, something I never (rarely) felt in SR3. In SR4 you need definite dicepool superiority to make use of semi-auto, while a mook firing long wide bursts can quickly get really dangerous.

That may be intentional, I don't know. I would LIKE semi-auto to be better, that's all. (Actually, I want recoil to be worse, as in, range dependant.)

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Oct 17 2011, 05:32 PM

I really am not a fan of how dual wielding works. Outside of dice pool monsters it just isn't effective. In some systems everyone dual wields, in SR4 I don't see anyone dual wield I'd kind of like a balance, where it is a viable option for people without having to make dice pool monsters but it isn't overpowered. I think the smartgun link should apply, it just makes sense and honestly I don't see 2 dice throwing the balance off that much.

I agree with this. In SR2-3 I got a lotmore one shot or 2 shot kills with semi auto than I do now. Now If I want to kill with a gun in an action it is all about the burst fire or a absurd dice pool.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 17 2011, 05:34 PM

I guess it's a personal thing. I'm pretty okay with it *not* being a viable option except for the true masters, but that's admittedly less cinematic.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 17 2011, 11:02 PM

There's a good reason to dual wield besides shooting both guns at the same time. That reason is to trade bursts and split RC between weapons so that you can use autofire and sound suppression effectively. It also means that you don't have to worry about ammunition as much on guns with low cap.

For example there's guns like the Ruger thunderbolt. BF only and 12 rounds in the clip means you're empty in 2 passes. Dual wield to trade bursts and you're no longer looking at unmanageable recoil and empty guns.

Posted by: KarmaInferno Oct 17 2011, 11:51 PM

I personally don't like that the guys who invests a ton into skill and attribute gets hosed when dual-wielding compared to the guy who just relies on gear.

Take a schmoe with 2 Agility, 2 Pistols, 2 Specialization. Slap a rating 4 TacNet on him. He gets a dual-wield dice pool of 8/8.

Take another "skilled pro" with 4 Agility, 6 Pistols, 2 Specialization, and he gets... 7/7.

Really, I find that any time you use "half" or other percentage based modifiers to tests in Shadowrun, you run into problems. The "-half armor" weapons. Dual wielding. And so on. The game really works best with flat modifiers instead of percentages.



-k

Posted by: CanRay Oct 18 2011, 12:00 AM

http://youtu.be/CtwJvgPJ9xw They see me trollin', they be hatin'... Tryin' to catch me postin' somethin' dirty!

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2011, 12:19 AM

It's not like he couldn't get that tacnet, though. I'm not too worried about that aspect of the game, and it applies to non-halved things just as badly. If anything, the culprit is abuse of the 'modifiers post-split', and the suspicious lack of penalties.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2011, 12:45 AM

But why is Joe Schmoe the Newb using a Military Grade Tacnet, while the Professional is not? Give him a Tacnet as well (of the same rating) and now you have Dice Polols of 11/11 vs. that 8/8. And 16 Base Dice vs. Joe Schmoes 10.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 18 2011, 03:08 AM

TacNets are a problem in themselves. They provide an unrealistic bonus.
Either the information that they provide is so specific and predictive that a person using one would be 1) overwhelmed or 2) just following instructions, or the information they provide is so generic that it's 1) irrelevant or 2) something the person should already know from their training and experience.

It's just dice bloat like Emotitoys/Empathy Sensor Software. Something that every pro has by default just to demonstrate the gap between professionals and chuds.

But really, it's like a machine is doing your job for you, and it would be more akin to a secondary viewpoint (like a teamwork test) than a bonus. IOW, if it knows where your gun is pointed and is to accurate at predicting enemy movements, why doesn't it just pull the trigger for you.


As to why laser sights and smartlinks don't work while you're shooting two guns at the same time, the RL answer is easy.
When you shoot two guns at once, you are no longer aiming. You're just counting on your ability to point and shoot.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2011, 03:10 AM

But that's what they're for: not-aiming.

Posted by: ggodo Oct 18 2011, 03:27 AM

Thematically I always pictured them like the hud you get when using Grenades in Gears of War. A trajectory line superimposed over your vision by either glasses or cyber. The tech part would also give you an ammo counter and probably automate many actions for you.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 18 2011, 03:28 AM

There's a difference between intuitive shooting and watching a dot, much less two dots at once. And there's a big difference between shooting at independent targets and shooting at independent moving targets.

Even on the same target with different colored dots, you're going to have confusion when you try to keep up with corrections at any real distance. Practice should mitigate this, as with anything, but trying to deal with two moving dots on the same moving target at 50 meters is a bastard.

Posted by: Miri Oct 18 2011, 03:41 AM

Why are you using a Heavy Pistol at its max effective range of 50m? Use a SMG or Assault Rifle for those ranges.

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 18 2011, 03:42 AM

Why aren't you dual wielding SMGs?

Posted by: Miri Oct 18 2011, 03:51 AM

Because I prefer to load EXEX rounds into my SmartGun modded Ares Sliverguns.

Posted by: ggodo Oct 18 2011, 03:54 AM

You can EXEX a slivergun?

Posted by: Miri Oct 18 2011, 03:56 AM

Ammo is interchangeable according to the ammo section. The Ares does not specifically state like the Mossberg shotgun does that it can only load flechette ammo.

Posted by: ggodo Oct 18 2011, 04:17 AM

That's. . . that's kinda funny. I'm picturing explosive flechettes now.

Posted by: Critias Oct 18 2011, 04:20 AM

That's a pretty creative interpretation of what an Ares Viper can do. I'll just say that you're not playing it the same way I am, or the way I ever have, and leave it at that.

Posted by: Miri Oct 18 2011, 04:22 AM

Oh there was a very large tree in another thread when I brought that up also. As I said there and above, the write up of the Slivergun does not specifically say it can only fire flechette ammo. Nothing creative about it.

With normal ammo it is a 6p -0AP gun with stock burst fire and sound suppressor.

Posted by: ggodo Oct 18 2011, 04:25 AM

Traditionally it is a flechette weapon.

Posted by: Critias Oct 18 2011, 04:37 AM

I think you're grossly misinterpreting the spirit of the weapon in order to get a burst-fire-capable, integrally silenced, hand cannon at a minimal cost and fuss, and it absolutely wouldn't fly at my table...but I'm not your GM, and more and more I think that's probably for the best.

Posted by: Medicineman Oct 18 2011, 05:07 AM

Sorry, but thats Wrong
the Ares Viper Slivergun is a Flechette only Pistol !

Hough !
Medicineman

Posted by: Ol' Scratch Oct 18 2011, 05:23 AM

The weapon's description specifically states: "It fires metal slivers that count as flechette ammunition (already factored in to the Damage Code)." It doesn't even use flechette ammo, but instead uses its own unique ammo type that simply uses the same game mechanics as flechette. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Using your insane logic, the Panther XXL assault cannon can be loaded with any ammunition since the description never says it only fires its own special ammo (it just says it does have its own special ammo which, somehow, means two separate things in Crazytown). Likewise, the Ares S-III Super Squirt can be loaded with, heck, anti-tank rounds since its description never actually says you can't. Hooray!

Posted by: Saint Sithney Oct 18 2011, 05:25 AM

You also know that the slivergun doesn't accept gas vents, right?
That's a separate thing that might get in the way of your plans.

Posted by: Shinobi Killfist Oct 18 2011, 05:46 AM

I pretty much hate tacnets for the dice pool bloat. Also all I really think all they should do is cancel some penalties like indirect fire penalties or help you avoid getting flanked and other location oriented things.

Posted by: ggodo Oct 18 2011, 06:04 AM

I'll drink to that.

Posted by: Grinder Oct 18 2011, 08:17 AM

This topic has generated some very unfriendly postings and general tone. Rember the ToS (1. Personal attacks, flaming, trolling, and baiting are prohibited. This includes any form of racism, sexism or religious intolerance.) and keep it civil. We don't want to close the thread and hand out Warnings (we have quite a few posters active in this thread on our watchlist).

Posted by: Miri Oct 18 2011, 08:19 AM

Noted.

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 18 2011, 08:55 AM

Hehe, it does seem strange that something that flat-out tells you where your bullet is going to land can give LESS of a bonus than something that just gives you general sensory information and predictions. Sure, if the Tacnet were to tell you that, 0.33 seconds from now a guy will come out from behind THAT corner, then your super-speed sammy can already fire the round that will hit him when his head comes out. Now that's... the stuff of movies and legends .

I think the Tacnet was designed as a general tool to make GM-troops better: As in, that corporate strike force that is just made up of the same NPCs that are written in the book needs some more dice. Oh, let's give it a tacnet, we don't have to do all the math, as players have to.

Seriously Tacnets are the shits in this scenario. I had my group of runners trying to sneak past a military perimeter which was also an R3 or even R4 tacnet. That gave these autonomous stationary drones quite a few dice to roll, and my runners couldn't get past without Edge.

So... dice pool bloat aside, it's a thing to separte amateurs from pros. And as that it works ok. But it has to be assumed that at some point simply everyone important will have one.

Posted by: Mäx Oct 18 2011, 10:09 AM

ROLF.
No it just very clearly states that it doesn't fire anykind of actual bullets at all.

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2011, 12:39 PM

The Slivergun certainly fires only slivers. It's totally special in that respect, though other weapons could be similarly restricted.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2011, 02:44 PM

Excuse Me? What? *Shakes Head* *Head to Desk*

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2011, 03:20 PM

I am establishing an understanding of the player who takes Edge 7, and needs akimbo to be as good as single-gun characters. :/

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2011, 03:31 PM

No, I get that Yerameyahu; What I do not get is the position that the Sliver Gun can fire alternative "Ammo."

Posted by: Yerameyahu Oct 18 2011, 04:00 PM

No, I meant that I am beginning to compile these little hints in my mind. I wasn't talking to you at all, hehe. Just thinking about the kind of person who thinks the Viper can shoot bullets.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 18 2011, 04:51 PM

Gotcha...

Posted by: Brainpiercing7.62mm Oct 18 2011, 04:53 PM

Miri I think the problem people are having is that you are taking the slavishly literal interpretation of the rules. I'm not saying there aren't cases where that can't be fun, or even produce working results where the intended rule might not. It might also be a case of history - the slivergun is known throughout the editions. It ALWAYS fired slivers. It used to suck (I think). Now it doesn't.

As a hyperbole:
The rules say "the slivergun fires slivers". They don't say, "the slivergun fires slivers and nothing else". So clearly, the slivergun must be able to shoot cucumbers. However, it is implied that it would in fact have to be cucumber slivers, because firing slivers is a special case of firing ammo, which most other guns are implied at doing, and the special case isn't overridden by the freedom of ammo selection that you quote in your reasoning. So by your interpretation, the slivergun should be capable of firing all kinds of ammo - as metal slivers. However, sticking with slavishly literal, that would always also count as flechette, because all the ammo is metal slivers (even the ExEx or APDS kind), and all slivers still count as flechettes. You could even have flechette slivers, which produce a gun at 10P/+10AP. So this is the slavishly sliverish doctrine.

So now slavishly sliverish produced some kind of monstrosity that completely deviates from everything we know about the game. When in fact, the gun as is is already perfectly fine, because it already cheats, and is clearly better than all normal HPists with flechettes.

I'm not saying you deserve ridicule, or even real criticism. It's your game, whatever flies with you. I had fun with this post.

Posted by: Dreadlord Oct 18 2011, 06:54 PM

You, sir, are fucking awesome! For Science (well, game mechanics, anyway)!

Posted by: Dreadlord Oct 18 2011, 09:09 PM

Snort! Slavishly sliverish! Hah! THERE'S a tongue-twister!
You, sir, win the internets!

Posted by: Snow_Fox Oct 20 2011, 01:49 AM

A cucumber gun? Is that like a potato gun?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Oct 20 2011, 02:04 AM

More like a Mini-Marshmallow Gun, I would think.

Posted by: Miri Oct 20 2011, 07:59 AM

How about a soda Pop gun?