Guesses to how combat might work

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun

6 Pages

« < 4 5 6

Guesses to how combat might work

Options

mfb View Member Profile	May 16 2005, 11:39 PM Post #126
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	i'm satisfied because it's impossible to prove a negative. i suppose i could quote every post that doesn't complain about not combining dodge and soak rolls, but that would be retarded. instead, you should go through and find some posts that back up what you're trying to say. or, alternatively, if you're happy with the fact that nobody agrees with you, you should be quiet. after all, we're talking about making a game that more people want to play; if a proposed change won't make anyone want to play more, then there's no real reason to make the change.

Critias

May 17 2005, 05:12 AM

Post #127

Freelance Elf

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

QUOTE (mfb)

if a proposed change won't make anyone want to play more, then there's no real reason to make the change.

Not that that's slowing them down about anything else, mind you...

blakkie

May 17 2005, 10:44 AM

Post #128

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (mfb)

i'm satisfied because it's impossible to prove a negative. i suppose i could quote every post that doesn't complain about not combining dodge and soak rolls, but that would be retarded.

instead, you should go through and find some posts that back up what you're trying to say.

I showed that at least one other person thinks that extra rolls slows SR3 down. You are contending that things weren't slow (i guess once you got in hundreds of sessions of practice?)

QUOTE

or, alternatively, if you're happy with the fact that nobody agrees with you, you should be quiet.

I'm at ease (not nessasarily happy) with not having a lot of people posting that they agree about this. *shrug* But i "should be quiet"? :rotfl:

QUOTE

after all, we're talking about making a game that more people want to play; if a proposed change won't make anyone want to play more, then there's no real reason to make the change.

Now there is the crux of it. There is a reason for the change. Streamlining. Will Fanpro actually streamline in this particular way (reduce combat resolution to single opposed rolls, as opposed to multistage rolls)? I think they might. I think it would be one good way to speed up the play at the table.
Of course you seem to think that there isn't a need to speed up play and/or reduce the clutter. Fortunately it appears that the developers don't agree with you.
Will they do it exactly as i described? *shrug* Given there are a lot more people putting a lot more time into finding the best procedure i'm guessing that they'll find an even better way of streamlining. I was really just demonstrating that it could be done while keeping the fear and general form of SR combat.

QUOTE (Raskolnikov)

You wish.

You don't always have to be the smartest one in the room to see something that everyone else is missing....at first. I'm use to it happening enough. *shrug*

QUOTE

Besides you've already demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between probability of group trials and group trials broken into discrete steps.

Really? Where would this demonstration be found?

mfb

May 17 2005, 04:01 PM

Post #129

Immortal Elf

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

QUOTE (blakkie)

I showed that at least one other person thinks that extra rolls slows SR3 down. You are contending that things weren't slow...

no, actually, i'm not. i never said that SR3 isn't slow; matter of fact, i said the exact opposite at least once. i'm contending that rolling dodge and soak seperately doesn't slow SR3 down enough that it's worth losing what you get by keeping them seperate. two people isn't much of a trend--one person and a vaguely supportive statement by another isn't a trend at all.

you're missing the point of streamlining, blakkie. FanPro isn't (or shouldn't be) streamlining for streamlining's sake--they are (should be) streamlining in order to make more people want to play the game. hence, we circle back around to the idea that if combining dodge and soak won't bring more players to the game, it's not worth doing. fortunately, the devs don't appear to agree with you, since we've still got lots of different stats and skills and dice to roll, instead of just flipping a coin or playing paper-rock-scissors to determine outcomes. that would, after all, be much more streamlined.

blakkie

May 17 2005, 04:24 PM

Post #130

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (mfb @ May 17 2005, 10:01 AM)

you're missing the point of streamlining, blakkie. FanPro isn't (or shouldn't be) streamlining for streamlining's sake--they are (should be) streamlining in order to make more people want to play the game. hence, we circle back around to the idea that if combining dodge and soak won't bring more players to the game, it's not worth doing.

The streamlining is likely being done to speed up the play and shorten the time to learn the basic mechanics of playing....so they can increase the number of people that will play it. So what do you base the assumption of speeding up the game and making the dice rolling easier to learn by removing 3 steps from each attack is not something that could help in that manner? Ah yes, the "5 seconds" you purport. I assume the "5 seconds" that you haven't measured in actual game use, and is based on someone with several years practice.

Instead you suggest to make the mechanics uniform that you -add- 3 steps including an extra dice roll to places that don't already have it?

QUOTE

fortunately, the devs don't appear to agree with you, since we've still got lots of different stats and skills and dice to roll, instead of just flipping a coin or playing paper-rock-scissors to determine outcomes. that would, after all, be much more streamlined.

:wobble: :wobble: :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

mfb

May 17 2005, 04:56 PM

Post #131

Immortal Elf

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

QUOTE (blakkie)

So what do you base the assumption of speeding up the game and making the dice rolling easier to learn by removing 3 steps from each attack is not something that could help in that manner?

we've already gone over why i think this. i'm not going to go over it again.

my suggestion had a lot of bulk, yeah. the first idea that one comes up with isn't always the best idea.

blakkie

May 18 2005, 04:39 AM

Post #132

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (mfb @ May 17 2005, 10:56 AM)

my suggestion had a lot of bulk, yeah. the first idea that one comes up with isn't always the best idea.

Of course it had a lot of bulk. To get rid of bulk you have to be willing to cut bulk. Cutting usually hurts.

Sometimes you even have to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again because you've dead-ended, because there is something in the basic premise of the existing that system that is holding you back. I suspect that L-M-S-D and the idea of staging damage (EDIT: and the concept of a base damage for a weapon) is holding back combat.

LMSD is an interesting sequence, it is 1, 1+2, 1+2+3, and 1+2+3+4. This [roughly] follows the quadratic curve (x^2)/2. Given how sharply the number of successes tended to drop off with variable TNs this progresion makes sense. If you are going to change the underlying probabilities LMSD might no longer be the natural choice. Starting off assuming the use of LMSD and staging down handcuffs you, and you start going down old dead-ends....like variable number of successes per stage down.

mfb View Member Profile	May 18 2005, 04:40 AM Post #133
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	...maybe you haven't read my suggestion. it's on page one.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*

May 18 2005, 04:43 AM

Post #134

Guests

QUOTE (mfb)

what would be interesting is if they dropped the L/M/S/D progression completely, and went with a simple 1-10 scale. every 3 boxes of damage would impose a the SR4 equivalent of the SR3 +/-1 modifer.

weapons would then have a two-part damage code: a "minimum hit" number, and a wound number. the wound number is simple--it's how many boxes of damage the weapon does by default. the minimum hit would be subtracted from the target's successes when the target attempts to soak a hit from that weapon.

shooter's successes add boxes of damage on a 1-for-1 progression; target's soak successes reduce damage using the same progression, but the target's soak successes would be automatically reduced by the minimum hit number. if i shoot someone with a 3/5 rifle (minimum hit 3, wound 5), and get 3 successes, then the target is looking at 8 boxes of damage. the target then rolls his soak, and gets 5 successes (he's a badass). reduce those 5 success by the minimum hit number, and he ends up with 2 successes; compare them to my attack successes, and i end up with 1 net success, for a total damage to the target of 6 boxes. (obviously, this concept needs to be rebalanced, but i think the basis is sound.)

armor would add dice to the soak test; hardened armor might reduce the minimum hit number. armor-piercing ammo would reduce the number of armor dice a target gets. high-deformation ammo ("EX", hollowpoint, glaser) would reduce the number of soak dice a target gets.

for added realism (and also complexity), you could have different weapon types be partially armor-piercing. for instance, anything using pistol rounds works normally; anything that uses rifle rounds subtracts two dice from the target's armor; anything that uses rifle rounds really well (sniper rifles, basically) reduces the target's armor dice by three; and so on.

This one?

blakkie

May 18 2005, 04:55 AM

Post #135

Dragon

Group: Members
Posts: 4,718
Joined: 14-September 02
Member No.: 3,263

QUOTE (mfb @ May 17 2005, 10:40 PM)

...maybe you haven't read my suggestion. it's on page one.

Sorry, i missed adding in there third item of a fixed number for the base damage for a weapon. Somewhat related to LMSD, but not the same. Basically you are trying to shoehorn a different type of dice rolling into the old procedures. The same SR3 procedure steps are there. You are just changing a few numbers (for example replacing a 6 with a 5 for the base damage), and trying to convert a die roll ment for variable TN to fixed TN.

EDIT: The LSMD comment was more directed elsewhere, not to you mfb. My bad.

mfb View Member Profile	May 18 2005, 04:57 AM Post #136
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670	okay.

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	May 18 2005, 05:00 AM Post #137
Guests	What?

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »

6 Pages

« < 4 5 6

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic · Subscribe to this forum

Lo-Fi Version

Time is now: 9th August 2025 - 03:04 PM

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.