Are hard caps set at staring caps good?

Are hard caps set at staring caps good?, Really?

So what do you think?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total Votes: 85
Guests cannot vote

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 13 2006, 08:22 AM

Post #76

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Critias @ Jan 13 2006, 08:59 AM)

Which is something you can manage in SR3, but not SR4.

Actually, you can't do it in both of them.
The problems are actions and weapon ranges... nothing skill could fix in both systems.

Kerberos

Jan 13 2006, 08:37 AM

Post #77

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 6-January 06
Member No.: 8,137

QUOTE (Critias)

It's not just fictional characters or Hollywood-glamorized martial artsist that SR4 can't let you recreate. Do a google search for Bob Munden, Tom Knapp, or Patrick Flanigan sometime. These guys are all a little chubby, a lotta old, or both -- yet they're some of the fastest men alive, with guns in their hands. They do things that are well outside the probability curves of SR4, and they do it (rather obviously) without astronomically high attributes.

How?

By being "min/maxers" or "powergamers" or "munchkins," or whatever you want to call them, and having very, very, high firearms-related skills. Which is something you can manage in SR3, but not SR4.

Hell, look at your average Blackwater or similar "civilian contractor" operating in the Gulf. I'd say more of them (and, in fact, more still-in-the-Service) are built like everyday guys than twitch-o-matic walls of muscle and adrenaline. It's quite possible, in the real world, to be a badass with skills and smarts, not phenomenally high physical attributes. It's too bad you can't manage it in SR4 (where, in order to be great, or even above average, at anything, you need a string of stats that'd do any action movie proud).

I personally see "atributes" as something like talent. based on that I'd say that the guys you name undoubtebly have very, very high agility. Their strenght and body might not be so high, but their agility will be.

Critias View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 08:46 AM Post #78
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	Did you Google 'em? These guys are fat old men, or withered old men, or fat middle aged guys. They are not Olympic athletes with out-of-this-world Agility scores, all weasel-quick and lean. What they do is from skill and practice. Not raw physical ability.

Kerberos

Jan 13 2006, 09:11 AM

Post #79

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 6-January 06
Member No.: 8,137

QUOTE (Critias)

Did you Google 'em? These guys are fat old men, or withered old men, or fat middle aged guys. They are not Olympic athletes with out-of-this-world Agility scores, all weasel-quick and lean.

What they do is from skill and practice. Not raw physical ability.

I don't think you can reliably judge people's "agility scores" just by looking at them. Do you really think that these people do not have an enourmous amount of talent AKA high attribute score?

Ryu View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 12:02 PM Post #80
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309	And they would outperfom themselves if they possessed both their current skill-level AND the physical attributes of their youth.

Critias View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 12:27 PM Post #81
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	In SR4 they would. But SR3 understood that ability and skill realistically count for more than raw, unrefined talent -- so they don't need their youthfull physiques to be able to shoot like this. Because they practice (ie, have a much, much, higher skill than 6 or 8 in their chosen field) obsessively, and have poured karma into their skill. Which you just can't do in SR4. Someone has yet to give a good reason for a hard skill cap, by the way. I mention these three guys because they are living proof that not only (a) skill counts for more than physical attributes, but (b) there's no such thing as a real-life skill cap. I've yet to see either point really refuted.

Ryu View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 12:44 PM Post #82
Awakened Asset Group: Members Posts: 4,464 Joined: 9-April 05 From: AGS, North German League Member No.: 7,309	Someone with extreme talent and mediocre training might be nearly as good as they are. That is realistic. They did pour enough karma into it to make it skill 6, but anyone who does that can compete. There is a decreasing return on effort after learning the basics of any trade, so collecting the world elite in one category is fitting. What I do see is limiting attribute dice by skill dice +x, but that is hardly an argument versus a hard cap or the linking of an attribute.

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 13 2006, 12:49 PM

Post #83

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Critias)

Someone has yet to give a good reason for a hard skill cap, by the way.

There is one - reliable grading and comparison.

QUOTE (Critias)

(a) skill counts for more than physical attributes, but

As there is not always a hard separation of both in real life, it is understandable that you can't see your mistake.
In this case, coordination and ability in real life both are mostly defined by the setup of the brain, given a basic physical capability - on the other hand, the presence of fat says squat about that.
What makes athletes wiry is mainly not agility, but stamina and strength.

Judging the dexterity of those guys wearing normal clothes just by looking at some photos isn't such a good idea.

QUOTE (Critias)

(b) there's no such thing as a real-life skill cap.

Being the software on ultimately limited wetware, there is such a thing as an absolute end of human achievement.
Of course, in real life this is a limited progression, not a linear one... but linear approximations are about the only thing most people want to use in a game.

Darkness

Jan 13 2006, 01:25 PM

Post #84

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248

QUOTE (Critias)

In SR4 they would. But SR3 understood that ability and skill realistically count for more than raw, unrefined talent -- so they don't need their youthfull physiques to be able to shoot like this. Because they practice (ie, have a much, much, higher skill than 6 or 8 in their chosen field) obsessively, and have poured karma into their skill.

Well let's see. And assume A SR4 shootist at skill level 6 and agility 2(<- below average) giving him 8 dice. He is are firing at an opponent with varying reaction levels:

CODE

Attacker Dice
+---------------------------------------
Defender | 6 7 8 9 10
Reaction 1 | 82,44% 87,32% 90,90% 93,50% 95,38%
2 | 72,93% 79,35% 84,39% 88,29% 91,28%
3 | 63,34% 70,82% 77,02% 82,08% 86,14%
4 | 54,13% 62,19% 69,20% 75,18% 80,19%
5 | 45,62% 53,83% 61,29% 67,91% 73,67%
6 | 37,97% 45,99% 53,58% 60,56% 66,85%
7 | 31,25% 38,84% 46,28% 53,37% 59,96%
8 | 25,46% 32,45% 39,54% 46,51% 53,19%
9 | 20,56% 26,86% 33,45% 40,13% 46,71%
10| 16,47% 22,03% 28,03% 34,29% 40,62%

And now an SR3 shootist around skill 9 opposed by various combat pools:

CODE

Attacker Dice
+-----------------------
Defender | 8 9 10
ComPool 1 | 98,05% 98,93% 99,41%
2 | 94,53% 96,73% 98,07%
3 | 88,67% 92,70% 95,39%
4 | 80,62% 86,66% 91,02%
5 | 70,95% 78,80% 84,91%
6 | 60,47% 69,64% 77,28%
7 | 50,00% 59,82% 68,55%
8 | 40,18% 50,00% 59,27%
9 | 31,45% 40,73% 50,00%
10| 24,03% 32,38% 41,19%

Not surprisingly, the SR3 shootist (Skill 9) shoots Mr. Average Combat Pool (which has (3+3+3)/2 rnd. down = 4) with 86.66%, while the SR4 shootist (8 Dice) hits Mr. Average Reaction (3) with 77.02%. Since the target number is higher for SR4 (5) than for SR3(4) this is expected with similar amounts of dice involved.

Now let's see what changes if they both fire at a target in partial cover (SR3 TN +4 = 8, SR4 -2=6 Dice).
We need a new table for SR3, accomodating to the new target number:

CODE

Attacker Dice
+-----------------------
Defender | 8 9 10
ComPool 1 | 50,26% 55,07% 59,50%
2 | 35,00% 39,53% 43,90%
3 | 23,74% 27,56% 31,41%
4 | 15,75% 18,77% 21,92%
5 | 10,26% 12,53% 14,97%
6 | 6,58% 8,23% 10,05%
7 | 4,16% 5,32% 6,64%
8 | 2,60% 3,40% 4,32%
9 | 1,61% 2,15% 2,78%
10| 0,99% 1,34% 1,77%

Mr. SR4 hits his target with his 6 dice with 63,34% accuracy, while Mr. SR3 goes down, to 18.77% accuracy.

According to these figures Mr. SR4 (who has Agility 2 and isn's specialized or improved) stay's high in his accuracy even in difficult situations, while Mr. SR3 does not.

mfb

Jan 13 2006, 01:46 PM

Post #85

Immortal Elf

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670

that's great, but it's completely tangential to Critias' point. Critias' point was:

QUOTE (Critias)

ability and skill realistically count for more than raw, unrefined talent

your tables don't counter this point, because your tables would remain the same if the SR4 shooter had 6 agility and 2 shooting skill. skill and ability, in SR4, count the same.

Critias View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 01:49 PM Post #86
Freelance Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 7,324 Joined: 30-September 04 From: Texas Member No.: 6,714	You're also conveniently forgetting how malleable TNs are in SR3. A -2 TN for a smartlink is hugely more potent than a few extra dice. A -1 TN for aiming can make all the difference in the world. If the Pistols 8 SR3 shooter aimed, and had a smartlink, his TN would drop to a 5, and he could expect more than twice the successes. What sort of benefit for the SR4 character get for that? A few more dice? One more hit, maybe? Even ignoring TNs for a moment -- throwing in Combat Pool or Edge can (very obviously) make a huge difference. It's easy to ignore all that (and I would, too, were I arguing that SR4 was "better"), and ignoring all of it is one of SR4's strengths (it's meant to be streamlined, after all, and including those things adds quite a bit of complexity). But making a comparison using SR3 where all you're doing is rolling base skill dice (without any of the other options available to an SR3 character), where those same options result in nothing but a few dice here and there for an SR4 character, is a truly lopsided comparison. But, that's all besides the point: I'm not real sure what you're even trying to say with your fantastically in-depth example. What does it really have to do with what we're talking about? Why pick a Pistols score of 8, anyways, and expect it to show anything worthwhile? The entire point of the discussion is that there is no skill cap in SR3 (so how does arbitrarily picking a specialization that a starting character can hit in 15 karma prove anything?).

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 13 2006, 02:00 PM

Post #87

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Critias)

The entire point of the discussion is that there is no skill cap in SR3

..making the game ultimately absurd on the long run.

mfb View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 02:04 PM Post #88
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	as opposed to SR4, where every team's got a Fastjack-level hacker. completely unabsurd, yessir. i think i'd rather have absurdity in the long run than in the very, very short run.

Critias

Jan 13 2006, 02:05 PM

Post #89

Freelance Elf

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

QUOTE (Critias)

The entire point of the discussion is that there is no skill cap in SR3

..making the game ultimately absurd on the long run.

Making it absurd in your opinion.

And how is someone being really, really, good at a few things more absurd than the end result of a "long run" game in SR4, where everyone is good at everything?

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 13 2006, 02:33 PM

Post #90

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Critias)

Making it absurd in your opinion.

Dashing the 100 in 5s is absurd for a mundane.

QUOTE (Critias)

where everyone is good at everything?

Speaking out of experience with 750+ karma? You better would, because even with that, it's pretty hard to be at 4 with the most important skill groups, with one or two at 6.

QUOTE (mfb)

as opposed to SR4, where every team's got a Fastjack-level hacker.

Funny thing, I've yet to see that - but wait, since I can't see every team, wouldn't it suffice to find one without it?
But I'm pretty sure I saw deckers being better than Dodger in SR3...

Darkness

Jan 13 2006, 02:40 PM

Post #91

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 248

QUOTE (mfb @ Jan 13 2006, 02:46 PM)

that's great, but it's completely tangential to Critias' point. Critias' point was:

QUOTE (Critias)

ability and skill realistically count for more than raw, unrefined talent

your tables don't counter this point, because your tables would remain the same if the SR4 shooter had 6 agility and 2 shooting skill. skill and ability, in SR4, count the same.
You're also conveniently forgetting how malleable TNs are in SR3. A -2 TN for a smartlink is hugely more potent than a few extra dice. A -1 TN for aiming can make all the difference in the world. If the Pistols 8 SR3 shooter aimed, and had a smartlink, his TN would drop to a 5, and he could expect more than twice the successes

Nope i don't. Again i just took one example from a myriad of possible examples. Of course i can factor those in ( SR3: TN 5, 60.51%, 1 Nettohit expected, SR4: 9 Dice, 82.08%, 2 Nettohits expected)

QUOTE (Critias)

Even ignoring TNs for a moment -- throwing in Combat Pool or Edge can (very obviously) make a huge difference.

Assuming the same as above, and that the SR3 guy has enough CP to double his skill, and Mr. SR4 has 3 Edge we get
SR3: TN5, 18 Dice , TN 5, 94.62%, 4 Nettohits expected
SR4: 12 Dice (/w Edge): 93.49%, 4 Nettohits expected
Quite similar in this case.

QUOTE

But, that's all besides the point: I'm not real sure what you're even trying to say with your fantastically in-depth example. What does it really have to do with what we're talking about?

Quite simply put: SR4 does also define the outcome via skill and talent.
Yes, it now assumes that talent has the same impact as skill (unless you use p.69).
But, someone with not much talent, can achieve about the same as in SR3, only that in SR4 more talent allows for even greater feats.

I do understand that from a gamist perspective SR4 isn't as appealing anymore than SR3, since you can hit the cap's quite quickly. And i second that, from a gamist perspective, SR4 is a failure in this regard.

So if i would argue with you, that "you can choose to start lower", to you it simply wouldn't make sense, because you would cripple yourself, stats-wise.

But from a narrativistic approach those skill caps make more sense since they allow ( contrary to an open model) for more exact definitions of the "meaning" of skill and attribute levels. And thus a narrativist can use this to take the intended values (read: according to his background) for the character he has created.

So yes: For you the skill caps make no sense. For me they are perfect.

But, from my point of view this:

QUOTE (Critis)

ability and skill realistically count for more than raw, unrefined talent

Is included in the current rules, only that you can also play it the other way around.
Indeed they do. But SR4 thus includes Critias statement, that skill defines your performance, even more so if you take p. 69 into account and set the max. reachable hits to twice your skill.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 03:19 PM Post #92
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	Regarding skill being worth more than raw ability: I think the thing that bothers me most about the skills is that the descriptions of what the various levels mean are utterly meaningless. A 7 is the pinnacle of skill? This skill is just as easy to obtain if you have a linked attribute 1, than if you have any other attribute. Someone else could have a little cyber and bring their attribute up to, what, 10? Nah, skip exceptional attribute, let's just give them a 9. They're attempting to do something they have no skill at whatsoever, and must default. Both characters have 8 dice. The expert who knows more than anyone else in the world in this field performs equally to the person who has no clue what they're doing. Maybe someone will argue that this is reasonable for physical skills. I would disagree, but it could be argued. What about hacking? Or medical skills? It's just absurd. Not to mention that they're both solidly outperformed by someone with 5 attribute and 5 skill, neither of which are really that amazingly high. So I really hate the table that days what a skill 1 means vs a skill 7, because when you look at actual performance it's meaningless. That table should be replaced with a table ranging from 1 to 20 or so, describing your ability relative to your total pool.

Kerberos

Jan 13 2006, 03:30 PM

Post #93

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 6-January 06
Member No.: 8,137

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jan 13 2006, 10:19 AM)

Regarding skill being worth more than raw ability:
I think the thing that bothers me most about the skills is that the descriptions of what the various levels mean are utterly meaningless. A 7 is the pinnacle of skill? This skill is just as easy to obtain if you have a linked attribute 1, than if you have any other attribute.
Someone else could have a little cyber and bring their attribute up to, what, 10? Nah, skip exceptional attribute, let's just give them a 9. They're attempting to do something they have no skill at whatsoever, and must default.
Both characters have 8 dice. The expert who knows more than anyone else in the world in this field performs equally to the person who has no clue what they're doing.
Maybe someone will argue that this is reasonable for physical skills. I would disagree, but it could be argued. What about hacking? Or medical skills? It's just absurd. Not to mention that they're both solidly outperformed by someone with 5 attribute and 5 skill, neither of which are really that amazingly high.
So I really hate the table that days what a skill 1 means vs a skill 7, because when you look at actual performance it's meaningless. That table should be replaced with a table ranging from 1 to 20 or so, describing your ability relative to your total pool.

Personaly I prefer to think of skill scores as the amount of training rather than "skill”. It's not what the book says, but it makes far more sense. That way a super athletic (agility 9) guy without any training in pistols (pistols 0) rolls 8 dice for pistols, which is the same as a total klutz (agility 1) who’s spent his every waking hour learning how to shot (pistols 7).

Rotbart van Dain...

Jan 13 2006, 03:31 PM

Post #94

Hoppelhäschen 5000

Group: Members
Posts: 5,807
Joined: 3-January 04
Member No.: 5,951

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

What about hacking? Or medical skills?

Oh, you can't default on those...

Critias

Jan 13 2006, 03:48 PM

Post #95

Freelance Elf

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,324
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714

QUOTE (Kerberos)

Personaly I prefer to think of skill scores as the amount of training rather than "skill”. It's not what the book says, but it makes far more sense. That way a super athletic (agility 9) guy without any training in pistols (pistols 0) rolls 8 dice for pistols, which is the same as a total klutz (agility 1) who’s spent his every waking hour learning how to shot (pistols 7).

Which is exactly what I'm talking about when I call SR4 patently ridiculous.

Moon-Hawk

Jan 13 2006, 03:50 PM

Post #96

Genuine Artificial Intelligence

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig)

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jan 13 2006, 05:19 PM)

What about hacking? Or medical skills?

Oh, you can't default on those...

Touche.
You're absolutely right, but change it to someone with a skill of one, give them exceptional attribute, the example doesn't change much, and the point doesn't change at all.

Rotbart van Dain... Rotbart van Dainig View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 03:59 PM Post #97
Hoppelhäschen 5000 Group: Members Posts: 5,807 Joined: 3-January 04 Member No.: 5,951	Until you limit max hits by skill x 2. But yeah, as long as that house-rule-option is not used, or first aid the skill in question, attributes are way better.

Kerberos

Jan 13 2006, 04:00 PM

Post #98

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 6-January 06
Member No.: 8,137

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jan 13 2006, 03:31 PM)

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jan 13 2006, 05:19 PM)

What about hacking? Or medical skills?

Oh, you can't default on those...

Touche.
You're absolutely right, but change it to someone with a skill of one, give them exceptional attribute, the example doesn't change much, and the point doesn't change at all.

I don't think that's all that absurd, a young but mindbooglingly brilliant Medical student could be a better doctor than somebody who had lots of training but was borderline retarded. Don't get me wrong SR4 obviously isn't a very close aproximation of reality, but I don't think it's absurd either.

Moon-Hawk View Member Profile	Jan 13 2006, 04:04 PM Post #99
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715	No, when you put it that way it's not. But bear in mind the mildly retarted doctor is concidered to be the best in his field, a paragon of medical prowess, superior to all others. The description of skill 7 says so. My problem is less that the brilliant medical student can match him, and more with the description of what a skill 7 means. If they changed the description of skill 6 to "years of dedicated study" and 7 to "years of dedicated study with a knack for the skill", and said nothing at all about how good the person was at it, I would have less of a problem.

Kerberos

Jan 13 2006, 04:19 PM

Post #100

Moving Target

Group: Members
Posts: 210
Joined: 6-January 06
Member No.: 8,137

QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)

No, when you put it that way it's not. But bear in mind the mildly retarted doctor is concidered to be the best in his field, a paragon of medical prowess, superior to all others. The description of skill 7 says so. My problem is less that the brilliant medical student can match him, and more with the description of what a skill 7 means. If they changed the description of skill 6 to "years of dedicated study" and 7 to "years of dedicated study with a knack for the skill", and said nothing at all about how good the person was at it, I would have less of a problem.

Ok, I can't argue with that, as I said I've just chosen to ignore the flavour text and regard it as training rather than skill, because that's what makes sense.

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »