 Ranged Combat, the SR3R way |
  |
 Mar 30 2007, 04:49 PM
Post
#351
|
|||
|
Running Target  Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729  |
Nonsensical is nonsensical, whether it makes the game balanced or not. You could give mundanes a "move super fast when fighting fast characters" ability and a "resist magic" attribute, and that would go a long way towards making them balanced in combat with Samurai and Mages. But it would still be nonsensical.
Step away from the crunch for just a bit. Does it really make sense that a person with reflex boosting cyberware could flip a light switch more times in 3 seconds than a non-wired characters? Are we back to it being a flat speed increase? |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Mar 30 2007, 04:57 PM
Post
#352
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Speaking of the 'firing a gun' example?: It's been mentioned that firing a gun as a simple action in combat is not just pulling the trigger, there's an aiming/recoil aspect to it, as well.
Wouldn't a good fix just be to allow up to 10 shots of unaimed surpressive fire with a pistol as a complex action, just like regular surpressive fire? You're not aiming and firing, you're just squeezing the trigger as fast as possible. I don't know, I came into this thread late, I'm probably missing the point. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 06:11 PM
Post
#353
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Looking back actually, I never brought that up for that purpose really... Ultimately though, that discussion has been transplanted from the Speed thread, which is why I for one am getting confused. If you are complaining about bullet time, put it in the speed thread and explain why a wired person shouldn't have more Simple Actions than a non-wired. If you are complaining about the maximum ROF of a handgun, explain why an SA gun should operate at the same speed regardless as to the speed or skill of the shooter (in other words, assume the SR3 rules stand as written in regards to initiative, and explain why guns should shoot only this number of bullets within 3 seconds). This thread is NOT about initiative, so please don't bring that debate here. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Mar 30 2007, 06:39 PM
Post
#354
|
|||||||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Indeed. I'll try my best to restrict my comments to the pertinent thread.
In progress.
First off, there is a maximum rate of fire on automatic handguns IRL because of the speed of the action. After squeezing the trigger, the hammer has to be released, which strikes the firing pin, which strikes the primer on the cartridge in the chamber, which causes the powder in the cartridge to ignite, which creates an ass-load of pressure, which pushes the bullet from the casing and down the barrel, which all pushes the cartridge case back against the bolt face, which pushes the bolt back, which causes the chamber to open up to the air outside the weapon (with the bolt pushing back on the hammer and re-cocking it), which allows the cartridge case to be ejected, which makes room for a new cartridge to be loaded, which allows the next cartridge in the magazine to pop up in line with the bolt face/chamber, which gets pushed into the chamber by the bolt returning from the blowback, which results in the round being loaded in the chamber, the hammer being cocked, and the weapon being ready to fire. <forgive my run on sentence> All of those things need to take place before the weapon is mechanically capable of firing again. Regardless of the user's skill or speed, a firearm operating in SA mode cannot fire any faster than the time required for these operations to take place. Now, IRL, all of those things happen REALLY quickly. But the mechanics of an automatic weapon will limit the upper end of the weapon's ROF. As a side note to this, I like the idea of a person's SKILL being able to influence how rapidly they can engage targets with a semi-automatic firearm. But in SR, skill has nothing to do with it. A person with Pistols 3 and Wired Reflexes 3 can engage 4 times as many targets as a person with Pistols 10 and no 'ware. So by all means, lets come up with rules that limit the number of SA shots a character can fire based on his/her Firearms skill.
That's a lot easier said than done when the whole idea of a mechanically determined ROF is broken by concept of more than one initiative pass. |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Mar 30 2007, 07:12 PM
Post
#355
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Northampton Member No.: 5,499 |
Actually, i disagree somewhat. The difference between the likes of a SA and an FA is the fact that the trigger has to be pulled, that is something that the user can effect. Otherwise how can you get the rate of fire from SMG's or Assult rifles? The mechanical action of the weapon is quite capable of moving that fast. Now if you want to cap the amount of Lead a FA weapon can dish out while being used by the likes of a wired person, cool. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 30 2007, 07:36 PM
Post
#356
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
IRL, there is. But a skilled shooter can compensate for all of those things and still manage to accurately fire more than two shots every three seconds from a semi-automatic handgun.
That's a jury-rig fix. It's better than the RAW, but still doesn't reflect the fact that a reasonably skilled shooter can accurately fire several rounds from an automatic handgun. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. The International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC, pronounced IPP-sick) has shooting competitions that involve challenges like the "el Presidente". For this challenge, the shooter stands with his back to three targets. Each target is a small hexagon, 18" across. The "A" zone (bullseye) of each target is only 6"across. These targets are 10 meters away from the shooter. In SR a 6" target that's 10 meters away is probably ruled as a "called shot" on a Medium range target when using a Heavy Pistol. When the cue is given, the Shooter must turn to face the targets, put 2 rounds into each target, eject his magazine, load a fresh magazine, and then put two more rounds into each target. And all of this has to happen in under 12 seconds. All of the shots MUST hit the target, and at least 50% of the shots must hit the "A" zone if the shooter wants to progress to the next stage of the competition. This is a part of the normal IPSC course, and is far from the most challenging stage. To do something like this in SR would require the expenditure of 14 simple actions (1 for each shot, one for ejecting the first mag, and one for loading a fresh mag). That's impossible for a mundane that only gets two simple actions every 3 seconds. Also, in SR, you would be looking at a Base TN of 5 for medium range, +4 more for making a called shot. So that's a TN 9 before you even get to recoil modifiers (which can be reduced) and modifiers for changing targets. And people in real life can do this without cyberware, without magic, and without smartlinks.
Nope...I think you've got it mostly. In fact, you are offering possible solutions rather that just offering problems (like me) ;-) |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 30 2007, 07:49 PM
Post
#357
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Perhaps I'm having edition confusion, but it's not impossible, is it? If he has init of 6+1d6 can't he roll an 11 or 12 and get two passes per turn?
Of course, the odds of an uncybered mundane getting two passes in at least 3 out of 4 turns are pretty small. And I could argue that the called shot shouldn't be used. That's not much bigger than a devil rat, and not all GM's would require a called shot to shoot one of those. Plus they're stationary. That should help the TN some. Strength and/or customized grip could negate the recoil. (but you mentioned that) There are switching target modifiers, but only +2 since you won't be shooting at more than a second target per pass. So depending on how generous your GM is you could be looking at TN 5 and 7 for each pair of shots. So I'll argue that the situation you describe isn't impossible, but you may be correct that it's disproportionately difficult. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 07:53 PM
Post
#358
|
|||||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Amongst other things, yes. And that would mean that the theoretical limit of ROF of a semi-automatic weapon would be the same as the identical weapon, but modified for full auto. You'll notice I never said this wasn't the case. In fact I stated that the mechanical operation speed dictates the upper limit of the weapon's maximum rate of fire. And even if the user can squeeze the trigger as fast or faster than cyclic operation of the weapon, it sill will not increase the weapon's rate of fire beyond what it would be MECHANICALLY CAPABLE OF IF IT WERE FULLY AUTOMATIC.
I never stated any hard numbers as the maximum ROF of SA weapons. Indeed, the mechanical action of a weapon like a 9mm HK MP5 is capable of firing 800 rounds per minute. I would assume that, in theory, if one could pull the trigger as fast as the weapon's action operates, one would get a ROF close to 800 rnds per min.
That MP5 will fire at 800 rounds per minute as long as the trigger is squeezed, regardless if it's being held by Hatchet-Man with his Move-by-Wire 4, or being held by Grandma Esmeralda with no cyberware and no training. That's not "cool", it's physics. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Mar 30 2007, 08:06 PM
Post
#359
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
Very good point. I haven't played SR3 since SR4 came out, so I suppose I got a little turned around. But yes, I would HIGHLY doubt that most IPSC competitors would be rated with a Quickness AND Intelligence in the 5-6 range, which is what you would need to be capable of rolling an 11 or 12 for initiative, right? Then you'd have to max or close to max your roll 3 out of 4 times. Yeah, that's not something that someone with a 6QUI and 6INT could do consistently in SR.
You are probably right. Then again, that's not much bigger than a human head, either. And I've never met a GM that wouldn't require a called shot for that.
Yeah, way difficult, and impossible to pull off "consistently" with an uncybered, mundane character. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Mar 30 2007, 08:12 PM
Post
#360
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Glad we're in agreement there.
I could try to play this card: The combat rules were designed for combat and don't work for shooting-range scenarios because it's not Shootingrangerun. The rules are fair and balanced for combat, and are realistic enough for the situations in which they are meant to be used. But you're just going to reply with: If the rules were properly designed to simulate shooting they would work well in combat OR firing-range situations, so that's a cheap cop-out excuse. And I would probably agree with you. :-) |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 08:19 PM
Post
#361
|
|
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
And I suppose IPSC competition events are carried out under combat conditions? Meaning, in particular, that A) the contestants have little to no idea about what the setup will look like before the opening bell, B) the targets are moving unpredictably, and C) people are shooting back at him? If not, then he's not actually in combat and these are closer to Performance(Shooting) skill tests rather than actual firearms use.
There's a lot more to actual gun combat than there is to competition target shooting. That's why in real combat those same shooters have much less than 100% accuracy, and I'd bet that they don't fire/unlead their weapons nearly as fast either. (Edit): Of course, if say you had something that forced you to ignore distractions then I assume you might get similar results to your competition example. Let's say, for instance, that you had something implanted in your head that forced you to shoot without thinking about those distractions, and instead react instinctively to the situation, as if your reflexes were programed by a computer. Hmm, now what would we call such a device... :D Btw, note that I'm one of the people supporting increased ROF for SA guns, and all of that. But insisting that an uncybered mundane should be able to replicate competition target shooting results in an actual running gunfight is... unrealistic, to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 08:28 PM
Post
#362
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,109 Joined: 16-October 03 From: Raleigh, NC Member No.: 5,729 |
You are right. IPSC is not combat. It is, however, Practical Shooting. Having spent several years in the US Army Infantry, I'll be the first to admit that range shooting is not the same as combat shooting. But Range shooting DOES sharpen the skill sets you use while in combat. And while your combat shooting will never be as good as your range shooting, it will be better than if you never shot on the range at all.
I'll also be the first to say that I can accurately hit a human sized target, at short range, in a combat situation, more than twice every 3 seconds. And I'm far from good enough to win any shooting competitions. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 08:29 PM
Post
#363
|
|
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
So maybe what you really need is a house-rule to reflect competition shooting.
Since you don't have to defend against your environment, you could get a flat +5 to initiative, making it pretty easy for a capable person to get at least two passes, reliably. If they're waiting for a buzzer to begin you could let them start with a held action that they take immediately, before the clock really gains any time, rather than waiting three seconds before their first action. You could give them a bonus to hit, although that may just be reflected by using the entire combat pool to attack and not having to save any for defense. Either way, target shooting examples are always going to elicit the same arguments when debating firearm realism in combat situations. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 09:23 PM
Post
#364
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
So the MP5 might run into trouble if Hatchetman rolls well and somehow has his weapon belt-fed, since if you do the math you'll realize that someone with four passes a turn using every single pass to fire 10 rounds full-auto will have fired 800 rounds after twenty turns (one minute). Y'know, I'm really not getting the feeling that excessively fast fire rates are what need fixing. I think doing something about the fact that a minigun ought to fire 300 rounds a turn, which requires an initiative of 191 to do right now, is probably a better place to spend our time. Edit: ok, I've reread that post and there's a few things going on there, so I'm not sure if I addressed a primary argument or not. When I have time to check, I will. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 30 2007, 09:33 PM
Post
#365
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Give diminishing returns on full auto damage so 100 times as many bullets don't do 100 times the damage? But at absolute cap on full auto damage? After a certain point hitting something with more bullets is not going to make the target any more or less dead. Put a cap on suppressive fire damage? The minigun hits a damage cap inflicted per square meter covered, but it can cover a lot MORE area per action, leaving it with a legitimate purpose. I admit I haven't given it much thought, but I think any of these would be more realistic than arbitrarily declaring that the weapon stop firing bullets after the first 15 (or whatever it is for the minigun) or giving it a damage code of 312Dx150 (or whatever absurd damage you get from 300 bullets) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 30 2007, 10:24 PM
Post
#366
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,889 Joined: 3-August 03 From: A CPI rank 1 country Member No.: 5,222 |
The primary problem wouldn't be the damage but the fact that the odds of hitting with a burst that long are going to be of the order of magnitude of 10^-15 on any single die, assuming short range, good conditions, sturdy vehicle mount and tracers.
As much as I complain about miniguns, I have to say they're hardly a priority. Optimize the rules for automatic weapons with cyclic RoFs in the 600-1000rpm range. If the same rules work for miniguns, great -- if not, forget about them. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 30 2007, 10:28 PM
Post
#367
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
If we fix the rules for searching fire, miniguns (with vaguely appropriate ROFs) should fix themselves.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Mar 31 2007, 12:10 AM
Post
#368
|
|||
|
Decker on the Threshold Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,922 Joined: 14-March 04 Member No.: 6,156 |
Hmm, rules for engaging an enemy where you have plenty of time to prepare, the enemy can't capably strike back, and you have a clear sight picture on your targets... Hey, sounds like an ambush to me! Whatever we decide on here in terms of initiative boosting and timing considerations, maybe we can adapt that to improved rules on Surprise and Ambushing. That way a 12-second competition shooting match would effectively be 4 full Combat Turns where the competitor freely gets the Ambushing benefits vs. the targets. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Mar 31 2007, 02:17 AM
Post
#369
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Y'know, if all these sorts of details get worked out you'd not only have an awesome ranged combat system for Shadowrun but something pretty kickass for roleplaying simulationism in general.
|
|
|
|
 Mar 31 2007, 06:02 AM
Post
#370
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
LOL, nice typo/pun. ;) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 15 2007, 08:32 AM
Post
#371
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Manchester, England Member No.: 1,062 |
There seems something very wrong with Rocket and Missile fire to me, imparticular regarding scatter. Reducing scatter by 1m per success when scatter is 2D6 makes hitting the broad side of a barn difficult even for someone classed as a "World Class" shot with one.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 15 2007, 08:35 PM
Post
#372
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
I think the idea is to avoid letting people hit man-sized targets with anti-vehicular weapons. Considering the blast radius, they're still VERY effective and tremendously dangerous. If you make them easier to 'aim', you'll need to tone down the blast radius significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2007, 05:28 PM
Post
#373
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Manchester, England Member No.: 1,062 |
AV rockets have a 2m blast radius and do not explode if they miss their target.
Thing is, I think it's kinda dumb that you're average scatter is invariably going to be 7m, that's a pretty big margin for error, especially when you need to score that direct hit. So basically, you need a skill of 7 in perfect conditions at short range, and the application of all your combat pool to statistically get that straight forward direct hit, no staging. Now a skill of 7 according to the BBB makes you "expert" on the skill - it feels very very wrong to me that even someone so skilled should have such a hard time of it, especially since every other skill in the game works on a principal that Skill 3 Joe McAverage can score a successful roll without any pool about 2 out of 3 times in ideal conditions. Now, I've never had to worry about it in game until now (I'm GMing an insurgency campaign in CalFree), runners simply don't carry rocket launchers, in all my years of playing I think we've used a MAW and a Great Dragon once each - but then we didn't really look at the scatter rules. Looking at them now I'm expecting to see a bit more missile/rocket action, I feel as a GM that they are badly broken, especially when you consider that grenade launchers, being somewhat less acurate get to reduce scatter by 4m per success. I know there is a big difference in range, but that's supposedly factored in by the increasing target number reducing the number of likely successes. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 16 2007, 07:12 PM
Post
#374
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Then don't use AV rockets. For $500 less you can get a high explosive rocket, which has a blast radius of 16 meters. And rockets do explode if they miss their target, they just don't explode if they don't hit anything at all (assuming they don't have something set to go off at a certain range). So if you're aiming for a person, don't shoot at the person, shoot at the ground at the person's feet. It occurs to me that rockets really are not meant to directly hit man sized targets, and unguided rockets are fairly useless against medium sized vehicles (which is why we don't use them, for the most part). This isn't quake. Rockets continue to be quite deadly as it stands, since an HE rocket fired by an unskilled shooter will likely inflict 9D of pain on the target and anyone around them. Really, the only way to keep rockets from being one-hit kills (which arguably they are right now, although perhaps one-hit TPK is more accurate) is to make it really really hard to hit a man-sized object straight on. I still say that the current rules should stand, for realism and for balance. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Apr 16 2007, 07:19 PM
Post
#375
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,066 Joined: 5-February 03 Member No.: 4,017 |
Why would anyone waste a very expensive AV rocket on a man-sized target anyway? Get some use out of your :nuyen: and go drop a tank or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 29th November 2024 - 02:54 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.