Emphasis mine.

(By the way, neither of those are handguns.)

...



This is me arguing to cut 'shit sandwich' options so you can add other options. I agree with you that more options is good. All I am saying is that the options need to be

A) Different

B) Balanced.

You're calling someone a power-gamer because of their ammo selection reasoning. If the options were not shit sandwich options and where instead 'different but balanced' you wouldn't be calling them a power gamer because of their ammo selection reasoning. This would be good. I wouldn't mind if you cut a shit sandwich option and replaced it with an improved option. All I want is for all options to be 'different and balanced'

If something is a clear cut 'power gamer choice' then there are shit sandwich options and they should be fixed or cut and replaced with something useful.

It's a 500¥ difference. For a niche implant. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

No, I call them one because they are. Apparently that hits home a little hard. Sorry for the reality check. But if your sole reason for choosing Stick-n-Shock ammo is because the other options are "shit sandwiches," even though several of them are very much viable options, you are, indeed, a powergamer. The fact that you take it as an insult seems to suggest that you actually agree that it is purely powergaming, and that you also think that it's a bad thing. So... <shrugs>. Whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'll just keep on playing with my little inferior Ares Predators and Uzi IVs loaded with regular, gel, and explosive ammo and be ever so upset with myself despite still blowing the badguys to smithereens with my 'shit sandwich' and sub-optimal choices.

Your first statement is semantics. The game designers are trying to create a product to market to players so they must think like a player to figure out want they might want. Also I have yet to meet or hear of a game designer who was not also a player.

You are also assuming that game designers did not try to make a balanced system. The fact is that such an ideal system does not exist. Name a system and I will find a forum where people are arguing its game balance.


All that is happening here is that you are picking options you do not like and trying to prove they are not needed. This is only your opinion and you have yet to offer any proof or evidence of your point. All you have done is reinforce your opinion. The fact that others disagree with you is evidence that options are not redundant and are needed. The fact that some people do choose the other options is evidence that the designers were trying to appeal to a varying group of players who have different criteria on the gear the choose than what you do.

I have generally tried to stick to abstract examples precisely to avoid the pointless debate about if a lined coat and armored jacket are different options or if one option costs 1/10th of a BP less than an other is that cost differentiation because we could be here all week.

Thought experiment. If we have skills, A, B & C, where A precisely duplications the functions of C AND B, but costs as much as C or B, is that 'good' for game design?



I am missing something about your argument, please tell me where it is

A) Is someone chosing stick and shock a power gamer?
B) If they are, why is chosing stick and shock a powergaming decision
C) If it is because stick and shock is better than the other choices, why is it wrong to fix or replace the other choices?

Which characters have happened to purchase... If you want to hear in frequencies tht the normal human cannot, then you need to purchase this piece of gear (whether you have an option for Bioware or Cyberware)... otherwise, you do not hear in those frequencies, period...

So, not really a niche piece of gear...



Interesting... The Ares Alpha is the ultuimate in Assault Rifles by many accounts here on the forums... but you know something... Not once have I ever picked it over something else... Ever... so by your standards, the selections that I do make are inferior "Shit Sandwiches"... Sorry to disappoint you, but "Equal but Different" is often equated to "Boring and Lackluster"... For me, give me the choices, even if they are sub-optimal... that is what life is all about... and for the record... I choose not to have the Ares Alpha because of its Legality... there are many other options out there that are not as optimal, mechanics wise, but are more legal (ie. Restricted vs. Forbidden)... it is a game world choice... and characters should be free to choose based upon the realities of the game world... your option to make everything Equal but Different just makes all of those choices boring...

Keep the Faith

No, you don't need to buy Increased Sensitivity. Hearing Enhancement from the main book does the same & more, even as external equipment… which is a lot cheaper than the implant to begin with.

Augmentation just added an inferior, redundant but cheaper variant… and that was the only ear cyber it added.

How necessary exactly is the pure ability to hear infra- and ultrasound?

Keep in mind that the legalities in the main book are for Seattle, UCAS and that even the book tells you that jurisdictions differ a lot.

And of course, you better make sure there is no illegal grenade loaded in the alternative, either.

Doc Funk, Tymeaus..... If you guys (an assumption) lived close enough I would invite your over for some grilled goodness, some tasty beverages, and we can have a blast playing with our shit sandwiches.

Feel free to find a single example of this "thought experiment" in the game. I certainly can't think of one. (Note the emphasis in particular.)


If you haven't been able to puzzle it together by now, nothing I can say can help clarify it for you. Sorry.

Err, Restricted vs Forbidden IS a mechanical difference. It's a great reason to choose an FN-HAR over the Ares.

So is the fact that the FNHAR has a red dot sight and not a smart gun system.

The FN-HAR and the Ares Alpha are the two best differentiated weapons in the same class in the book!

My solution to SnS is to -1DV and use the weapons (DV-1)S(e) instead of the 6s(e) and give full Impact armor value. That means that they are less effective in smaller weapons. That balances that loops hole out a bit.

Flechettes and Shot. Keep the +2DV and +2 AP, but treat all armor as hardened armor and use Ballistic not Impact. Armored jacket 8/6 would be 10 verses the flechette. that means that without at least 2 net successes he doesn't do any damage.

Vehicles are immune to stun damage, which SnS deals, however the secondary effect of that 6S(e) is the (e) part which vehicles are not immune to.

There isn't one? It's a thought experiment for a reason. It's like using Maxwell's demon to think about thermodynamics. Of course, there is no demon, the container doesn't exist, and it's all made up, but by thinking about the made up example we can draw some lessons that we can take away and apply to the much muddier and more complex system under discussion.

So no point in actually discussing it. (Which was my point.)

Or, what, is your argument now boiling down to imaginary things in order to prove what you have to say, because you can't actually back it up with any facts whatsoever? Again: Options are a good thing. If you have issue with some of those individual options, that's perfectly fine and reasonable. I certainly do. But in no way is that a valid excuse to say that options are a bad thing.

Let's wait for the next "You don't need Dodge, just get Gymnastics" argument.

Except that SnS is now terrible against spirits. No AP and less damage than the weapon means the only thing the spirit might feel is the (e) secondary effect.

So you are saying that thought experiments do not have any value? As I noted before, game examples are going to be sticky because we'll start arguing about if 1/10th of a BP is differentiation (I'd suggest that less than 0.025% isn't, but obviously people may disagree), which will obscure the actual point (is differentiation good), or arguing about conditional things (assuming I have unarmed combat, then I look for etc)

Finally, you keep straw manning me. I have never said generically that 'options' are a bad thing. I have only said options should be differentiated and balanced, and if they are not differentiated or balanced they should be replaced by other options that are differentiated and balanced. That option may be a revised version of the same thing to re-balance it.

Lets look at the calc. Shotgun 8p normally 7S(e) with SnS. That is still pretty good. Why the hell would you taser rounds against a spirit anyway.

it turns an uber-round into something more reasonable

You do that. Not that it matters since Gymnastics doesn't help you defend against attacks unless you're using Full Defense. Gymnastics Dodge is only a replacement for the Full Dodge or Full Parry options, not the Dodge skill itself (which can be used to defend against melee attacks under other circumstances). SR4A pp. 153 and 160.

<hair tousle>

HALF ARMOR.

The point is that you can't balance options. It's physically impossible. One or more options will be superior choices no matter how hard you try. (Or do you really think the game designers for this game or any other went out of their way to be flippant and extravagant with the options?) At best, you can complain about those various options and suggest ways to tone them down or beef them up. But they're never be balanced because 'balance' doesn't exist except conceptually.

Thank you, Cpt. Obvious. That's how the argument goes… then goes on that if you got both Unarmed Combat and Gymnastics, you don't need Dodge.

That's no excuse for creating uber-options, though.

I don't know that part of the book very well, but just from that statement. As a GM, I would not allow half armor against spirits using taser rounds. It seems too munchinie for me

If mundanely created elemental damage does not halve armor against spirts… well… play only awakeneds, preferably summoning specialists.