[X] My Assistant

[JonathanC]

I bet, based on nothing. Sue me, or show my your peer-reviewed evidence. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) 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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

--
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.

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.

[Yerameyahu]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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.

[Saint Hallow]

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.

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?

[Ol' Scratch]

Having two dots does not *hurt* your aiming ability

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.

[Yerameyahu]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

--
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.

[JonathanC]

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'?

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.

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.

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?

You grossly mischaracterized what a smartgun is and how it works[

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.

and then the vague 'facts' started recurring.

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

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).

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.

Given that the smartgun bonus is an eternal component of the DP, adding it is not slowing down the game; taking it away is.

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

[Saint Hallow]

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.

[JonathanC]

I dig it, Saint Hallow, but the smartlink already deals with the binocular issue. That's its job. It does it with one dot

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.

[JonathanC]

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.

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.

[Yerameyahu]

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'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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.

[JonathanC]

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.

Wow, the "I'm too lazy to Google" defense. Haven't seen that one in a while. Here, read this. 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.

[Yerameyahu]

What am I supposed to be defending? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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.

[JonathanC]

What am I supposed to be defending? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I'm making no claims about the 'goddamned visual system'… and if 'making claims' means providing *any* facts at all, neither are you.

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.

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.

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.

[Yerameyahu]

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.

[Saint Hallow]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Ol' Scratch]

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.

[Yerameyahu]

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.

[JonathanC]

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.

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.

[Medicineman]

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

[Yerameyahu]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) 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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[JonathanC]

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?

[Yerameyahu]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Ironically, your post is the deflection, because it ignores the majority of mine.

[Medicineman]

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 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

with a Happy Dance
Medicineman

[Yerameyahu]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) … Also, I kinda expected a One-Legged Dance or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[JonathanC]

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. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Ironically, your post is the deflection, because it ignores the majority of mine.

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.