IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Active vs Passive, Wrong way round?
Aerospider
post Sep 13 2010, 11:19 AM
Post #1


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 15-December 09
Member No.: 17,968



Ive been looking at the passive and active targeting mechanics for Gunnery use and it seems the wrong way round to me.

Passive targeting RAW has it that for no extra effort the operator can substitute Sensor + Signature modifier for Agility (which, for targets smaller than a standard vehicle, is only of interest to a complete clutz with mil. spec. equipment). By contrast, active targeting RAW requires a simple action to lock-on and grants bonus dice according to the hits achieved.

The roll to hit using passive targeting (where the operator is merely using the sensors as extra aiming data) is comprised of

Gunnery + Sensor + Signature mod.

Assuming the target isnt evading the lock-on, the gunnery roll using active targeting (the sensors are finding the target and automatically aiming the weapons in the right direction) is comprised of

Gunnery + Agility + [Perception + Sensor + Signature mod.]/3

including a wasted action every time the lock-on test fails

So, subtracting Gunnery and [Sensor + Signature mod.]/3 from both sides boils the comparison down to:

2/3 x [Sensor + Signature mod.] vs Agility + Perception/3

It seems when you use the sensors merely as an aid (passive) your physical ability is moot but when the sensors do the aiming for you (active) you rely on both an attribute and a skill. Does that make sense?

Discuss.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Karoline
post Sep 13 2010, 11:24 AM
Post #2


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,679
Joined: 19-September 09
Member No.: 17,652



It does seem quite backwards, but maybe the passive is referring to the fact that you don't effect it much (passive) as opposed to requiring your attention (active). So it could just be how you are looking at it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Saint Sithney
post Sep 13 2010, 12:04 PM
Post #3


Runner
******

Group: Members
Posts: 2,705
Joined: 5-October 09
From: You are in a clearing
Member No.: 17,722



Technically, the 'attribute' should be Command, since you'd only be using Agility on a pintle mount or other manual turret, which (I presume) wouldn't have any real play with the sensors.
I think the inclusion of the Attribute (well, Command prog) on Active lock represents the sort of fine control otherwise absent from the act of spraying bullets madly from a remote controlled turret.

My question would be, does the lock on negate range modifiers? If not, what if there's vision mag installed on the turret's camera?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Sep 13 2010, 02:36 PM
Post #4


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



I wouldn't overemphasize the danger of having to re-acquire locks.

I think you're misreading 'passive' and 'active'. The game doesn't really state the context behind those terms, but it seems logical it simply refers to 'do you have a lock-on or not?' Active Targeting intentionally locks onto *one* target; Passive Targeting is simply using Sensor for Agility. The third option, 'no targeting', is Gunnery + Agility (let's call it 'manual').

So… you've assume that Active is Lock-On + 'Manual'. Why? If it were Lock-On + Passive (sensor-based), wouldn't that make more sense? At the very least, I'd let the player decide, but possibly I'd (house) rule that using Active Targeting requires that the Gunnery test be a 'Passive Targeting'-style one (Sensor instead of Agility).

Let's not even talk about how annoying the Signature Table is, with its few options, tiny range, and complete ignorance of using *different* sensors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th June 2024 - 08:15 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.