 More news of Origins, yeah..I saw the good stuff |
  |
 Jul 28 2005, 07:56 AM
Post
#301
|
|||
|
Great, I'm a Dragon...  Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698  |
As if lack of knowledge would stop people here to criticize SR4. ;) |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Jul 28 2005, 03:59 PM
Post
#302
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
Yeah but it doesn't stop us from making guesses based on what we hear.
They have said over and over. One mechanic to rule them all. So drain has to be willpower + logic or willpower +charisma against tn 5. Each hit is a level of drain knocked away. The level is probably still F/2. Example: Trace has a Sorcery (or whatever there going to call it, say Spellcasting) of 6, will 4 and logic 4. He cast whatever spell at level 4, so 2 drain. He has 8 dice (will + logic) to resist. Everything he rolls above a 5 is a hit so he just needs 2 hits to reduce drain. end example. Thats how I would do it to keep things simple. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 04:19 PM
Post
#303
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Just underlines my point... the details of the Magic system haven't been announced (either by FanPro or the Origins' demo players) and any claims to the way SR4 functions in this respect are unfounded speculation.
They might even be right, but they might not. At this point they're still personal opinion based on an incomplete picture of the overall framework. Ellery presented the information as fait accompli, even though we have been told Atts are being added and apparently higher Att scores will be less common (which indicates a shift in the overall framework) - there's nothing wrong with deductions and assumptions as long as they are not presented as anything other than personal speculation. Regardless, my point was/is you can only really make a valid judgment to the relative value and "importance" of a spell's Force if you possess an idea as to the overall framework and the balance the mechanics set. A Force 6 spell in SR3 has the "importance" it has because of multiple factors and not just the +20% difficulty to resist; factors such as: the typical Att and Skill values of PCs and NPCs, the fact that it is the highest force a non-wired magician can cast without getting Physical Drain, the way the Spell Resistance Test functions, the role of Spell Pool, etc... A claim such as the one Ellery made (even if it turns out to be entirely correct) based on current available information, without benefit of the context and rules balance is simply speculation. For all that's known a Force 4 spell Stunbolt in SR4 could be enough to deal exactly the same average damage and be equally hard to resist as a Force 6 Stunbolt spell was in SR3 (ie. the Damage might be retooled to be Fx2 - just for the sake of argument) or the new mechanics balance might end up dictating that a Force 6 spell has exactly the same average effect (even though the elements that factor into the equation are different) because so many other variables (besides the TN to resist) have changed in context - and so it would be equally "important" in SR4. (btw - Drain could well be Will + Logic or Will + Int or Will + Magic or Magic + Int or Will + Cha or Will + Spellcasting, etc...) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 08:09 PM
Post
#304
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,512 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 392 |
yeah but not everyone on this board is a playtester so all we have to go on is unfounded speculation and personal opinion
so if we can't do that why have a board in the first place |
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 08:28 PM
Post
#305
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
There is a difference between stating something as your opinion or your deduction and presenting it as fact. I would not have brought this up if Ellery has posted "(...)but it looks like it won't be with the new mechanic".
As is, I'm more than a bit tired of seeing people jump to the wrong assumptions based not on facts, but on their bias and preconceptions towards the change of system and unfounded opinions on the dev_crew. As I said Ellery might even be right but that post was a follow up to someone's post and the statement was made without any such disclaimer and might be misconstrued as factual. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 08:33 PM
Post
#306
|
|||
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
Most people here seem to have a negative opinion of the new ruleset without knowing details or having even played it. I always wonder how most posters know that everything will get worse in SR4. Yeah, may be ranting. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 28 2005, 08:35 PM
Post
#307
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
I find it hard to believe that it could be misconstrued as fact as the only people claiming to have knowledge of anything more specific about Fourth Edition than what has been released are people who already know what's in it and have admitted to as much, which last I recall neither person ever even suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 08:46 PM
Post
#308
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
I submit the original post:
That was not presented as opinion, not to mention the argument is flawed and the logic behind it (as presented by Ellery in the following post) is faulty (or at least incomplete). To put it simply, as has been the case in several threads, people (and Ellery had actually been an exception for the most part) are adding 1+1+X and coming up with 3 and presenting that (to any reader whether he/she's up on the latest breaking details and hints) as the logical conclusion. In this particular case all the remaining conclusions in that post, starting with the erroneous deductions about cyberware, are equally and evidently flawed for the same reasons (lack of knowledge of the details). If someone like OSUMacbeth (apologies OSUMacbeth, just picking an obvious recent addition to these discussions) was to come upon that post, without previously thrashing through a handful of other threads - to understand whether or not Ellery is grounding those deductions in official information, demo reviews, slips by playtesters, a recorded off-the-cuff reference at the Origins seminar, or simply deducing stuff from incomplete knowledge of the greater system - he would have no reason not to think of it as fact. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 28 2005, 09:02 PM
Post
#309
|
|||||
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
I think my original negative opinion was caused by the poor FAQs. The information that Fanpro released was so poorly written and delivered the worst bits of information possible. Having gotten a clearer picture of the current incarnation of the rules I can state a more reasonable opinion. SR4 has some great ideas. But as it is right now, very poor implementation (re: Rate of fire). They fixed some things, broke others and from what I can tell, don't really take into account long term games. There are things I absolutely LOVE. The new Firearm rules are kick butt, the combat rules rock. And it looks like they brought the arcane and techno in with the rest of rules. Instead of actively despising the game from what I had seen of it before, I have moved to anticipating and hoping they fix the things I perceive as wrong. I also hope that whoever wrote those FAQs is never aloud to speak or write to the public ever again. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 28 2005, 09:16 PM
Post
#310
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
Well, you should be happy to know that the ROF are no longer any worse than SR3s. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 28 2005, 09:17 PM
Post
#311
|
|
|
Great, I'm a Dragon... Group: Retired Admins Posts: 6,699 Joined: 8-October 03 From: North Germany Member No.: 5,698 |
I never wanted to critize you personally - all i wanted was to express my opinion about the general tone of the SR4-forum here at DS.
I understand your point and really appreciate such a point of view. :) |
|
|
|
|
Jul 28 2005, 09:24 PM
Post
#312
|
|||
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
Well thats good :) Like I said, since I have seen some stuff (from Origins) I have a whole new respect for the game. I saw some things in the begining (that were plain bad) and those have changed and I am glad for it. While I still think it will drastically change the way SR feels, it hopefully wont be for the worst. I still would like to see ROF and ranges be better :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 29 2005, 12:39 AM
Post
#313
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 26-July 05 Member No.: 7,517 |
*preens*
No worries, Synner. I just like to be noticed. :) OSUMacbeth |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 01:48 AM
Post
#314
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
Synner, there are some really cool novels written by a guy named Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. They're about this detective named "Sherlock Holmes", who uses this peculiar thing called "deductive reasoning". You're right that my reasoning is incompletely presented. However, it is simply an exercise in deductive reasoning to conclude, on the basis solely of material presented in FAQs and this thread, that TN6 will not be as uniquely effective as it was before. Relatedly, there is likely to be much less reason to avoid taking a point of cyberware. Let's examine the list of unknowns and assess whether they are relevant.
Is this fact relevant to whether a force 6 spell is substantially better than a force 5 spell? The only involvements that are pertinent are those that are differential between force 6 and force 5 spells, and the total differential must add up to about as much as the force 5 spell was originally. Does the number of dice in the pool get affected by the force of the spell? Specifically, does a higher force give you more dice? Let's suppose so, even though this could be problematic for game balance. How many more dice? In a system intended to be easier to play, linear progressions are the rule, so we expect the same number of extra dice going from 5 to 6 as from 4 to 5, and so on. There are probably other dice involved, but even if there are only "force dice", the maximum effect is 20% (6/5). Now let's consider the target's resistance. Does the force of the spell change the number of dice the target has to resist? Possibly. How much? Well, again, a linear amount, most likely. Here, it depends on how many dice the target originally had to resist. The force may also set a threshold to not be affected--the analysis here is similar. Suppose the target has 5 dice or fewer to resist. They can't resist TN5 without using edge, nor can they resist TN6 (or, possibly, they have 1 die to resist in both cases). No difference. If the force effects the threshold, let's suppose they have 6 dice. Then the chance of resisting TN6 is 0.14%, as compared to 1.6% for TN5. This is, admittedly, a big fractional difference (a factor of 12, even), but the number of cases where it will make any difference is very small (less than 1.5%), so this fractional advantage can be largely neglected. It turns out that the crossover is when the resisting party has 11 dice--then there's a 16% chance of resisting TN5 and only a 8% chance of resisting TN6. Again, it's a big relative difference, but it only matters in a small fraction of cases. If the force subtracts dice from the target's pool to resist, then force 6 is twice as potent if the target has 7 dice to resist (1 left vs. 2 left), but otherwise has no effect or a much smaller effect. One can continue with various other permutations, but the same theme will repeat: either you achieve a big difference between TN6 and TN5 through subtraction, where you have 2 vs. 1--and it's unlikely that you'll subtract this accurately; or, you'll achieve a big difference between TN6 and TN5 through probability, where you only see a big difference when TN5 is over 80% likely to get the job done on its own. Net result: TN6/TN5 is again likely to be an improvement of somewhere around 20%. If both this and the previous effects exist, then the advantage is more like 44%. One can go through other analyses with boxes of damage, and do it for SR3 and every conceivable SR4 system, and keep coming up with the same thing. This isn't a surprise, however, because of the principles used in SR4. Now, I will grant that if there is a completely different mechanic used for spellcasting in SR4, then there could be a much larger effect here. However, my previous statement was assuming that the same mechanic would be used, since it's been said that the systems are going to be unified.
Hm, there is no c). Oh well.
Doesn't matter, unless spells with higher force have less drain. If they do, then maybe there's 20% less drain (linear progression).
Thus, one considers all ways of applying the SR4 mechanic. (See above.)
Doesn't matter, unless edge's use or effectiveness depends critically on the difference between TN5 and TN6, and furthermore does so in a peculiarly nonlinear way so as to greatly favor TN6. The bottom line is that the special status of force 6 spells is simply not open to SR4 developers without resorting to non-unifying, non-streamlined rules to achieve that end (and we've been told that the rules will be more unified/streamlined). In fact, the special status of TN6 in general has been quite heavily criticized on this forum for being weird and unnatural. As such, I'd expect the response to be, "You're darn right! That weird force 6 / TN6 stuff is gone in SR4!" I'm typically cautious in my statements. However, in this case, I have sufficient information so that I don't need to be, except to the extent that the information that has been given about SR4 through official sources and at the Origins demo is just plain wrong--or the goals for SR4 have been diligently ignored when dealing with magic (despite the lengthy FAQ bemoaning the SR3 magic system). Anyway, a force 6 spell in SR3 is important often (especially with damaging spells where the number of net successes matters), and important when it matters most--when facing an opponent who has a significant number of dice to resist. I invite anyone to come up with any scheme using SR4-style fixed TN, dice pools with bonuses and penalties, and variable thresholds, and show a large and frequently important difference between force 5 and force 6 spells.
You are saying I'm wrong, because I said force 6 spells were less important in SR4.
And I'm saying your experience is wrong--if you look and think more carefully, and try out different scenarios, you'll find that force 6 in SR3 (vs. force 5) is a much bigger advantage than in SR4, regardless of how SR4 handles the details of the magic system. |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 02:52 AM
Post
#315
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 232 Joined: 19-October 04 Member No.: 6,773 |
boo hoo, force 6 doesnt matter any more! Whats the big deal? Its just a number!
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 04:14 AM
Post
#316
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 778 Joined: 6-April 05 Member No.: 7,298 |
It changes the importance of maintaining your magic at a certain level, which changes the number of mages with cyberware, which changes the feel of the game. (Although the force 6 thing is essentially certain, each additional step is impacted by other factors, so it's harder to tell how much the feel will change.)
I'm not saying it's bad, but it is different. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 08:29 AM
Post
#317
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
The really cool stuff with Sherlock Holmes (in Conan Doyle's hands at least) is his ability to conduct "deductive reasoning" from all the available information including the obvious yet inconspicuous details which were in everyone else's face but didn't notice (Mycroft was smarter anyway). Ellery, all your deductions are correct if you limit your reasoning to only part of what is known. For instance, your argument appears to hinge on the 20% difficulty increase between a TN5 and a TN6 which will cease to exist (and hence supposedly reduce the effect/importance of a Force 6 spell). What I'm trying to say is there are other ways of reproducing (compensating) that added 20% difficulty within the system with a TN of 5 (ie. drastically reducing the average number of dice used in Resistance Test, reducing the mean Atts, increasing thresholds, etc) but ultimately maintaining the "importance" of a Force 6 spell. I submit that you are not taking into consideration all that has been announced and hence your "deductive reasoning" is flawed. I'm simply stating that you lack the information to make this statement, and are in fact ignoring elements (such as the change to lower average Atts due to the increased costs of above average Atts etc) which have been announced.
Clarification: Yes your reasoning is incomplete, but besides that you said "a Force 6 spell" and not a TN6 (that is implied, but it was not in your original post). Likewise the reasoning behind cyberware is incomplete and flawed. You haven't taken into account the impact the variable Magic Att might have (FAQ info), the fact that spell Force is capped at Magic x2 (Origins seminar and posts here) and most importantly because you haven't (and couldn't) factor in the most important element in the Magic vs. cyberware equation: how Essence works (because this hasn't been announced). If cyber-depleted Essence continues to be deducted directly from Magic like in previous editions, regardless of whether the cybered individual now has Magic 3 or Magic 6, your entire reasoning is off. There is likely to be much greater reason to avoid taking a point off cyberware. Not only is it going to reduce your Magic like it always did but its also going to reduce your spell Force cap.
I'll just reply to this, because you've missed my point. Your analysis from this point on focuses on the value of Force. My point was that the inherent value of that Force with the 20% increase in difficulty inherent in a TN5 and TN6 can be achieved, not by altering the TN (or changing the way Force functions), but by skewing the rest of the equation (altering pool dice for casters, altering dice pools for targets, altering damage resistance, altering Atts, having Force grant more dice, etc). Even if you don't alter the way Force works you can alter the way all the other factors relate and interact with Force. If you modify the system the inherent value of that 20% increase can manifest elsewhere, because the whole equation changes. Force is one element of a much larger equation used in Spellcasting even in SR3. I'm sure you'll acknowledge that were a GM to rule that Attributes above 4 in his street-level game would be rare, the relative value/importance of a Force 6 spell changes (because the average character's ability to resist it just went down). Without information regarding how the overall system works, you cannot make a valid pronouncement to the effect that "The ability to cast force 6 spells was important in SR3, but won't be with the new mechanic". let alone build to conclusions on it being easier to pick up cyber based on that.
Again you are failing to take into account the modifications to other elements (which have been announced) at play besides Force and jumping to a conclusion using the SR3 framework as reference.
Sorry. Mislabeled.
Again I disagree. Without a Spell Pool the way Drain is resisted, the point when it becomes Physical and the way all this interacts with SR4's variable Magic attribute is vitablly important. As I mentioned your original mistake was to post about a Force 6 spell (rather than the implied TN of 6) and then make assumptions based on that.
Yep. But one should consider ways of applying all the (known) SR4 mechanics.
As I've explained elsewhere the inherent difficulty in a TN6 can manifest elsewhere in a fixed TN 5 system by a system shift.
Only if you stick to one aspect of the equation.
Nope, magic and tech are pretty much fully compatible with everything else. As far as I know there's no exceptions to the core rule. Where your logic fails is that it doesn't take into account the (announced) modifications to the other elements that attribute relative value to Force.
I'll be happy to do so in August.
Keep in ming that I said for "slightly different reasons" and I will be happy to get back to this once you are aware of the full details of the magic system. Keep in mind that I have been referring to a Force 6 spell all along. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 09:14 AM
Post
#318
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Ellery's made several statements which are admittedly based upon incomplete information. Fine. It follows with the utility of the forum in hosting various attemtps at speculation and conjecture based upon incomplete information.
But I don't understand why you are so insistent upon hapring on that fact. Either you know more, and can't or won't say, or you're picking a fight for no good reason. I don't know. I don't understand why I'm looking at a couple of rather lengthy posts which could just as easily be summed up by saying, "Ellery, you don't know what you're talking about because you lack all of the full facts", as if that would somehow magically quell conversation and speculation (It doesn't seem to have done so yet). What's the point? I'd imagine one might have better things to do that poke holes in speculation admitted based upon incomplete information while providing absolutely no new information whatsoever. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 09:28 AM
Post
#319
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
Perhaps for the same reason that Ellery keeps going. They both have their point of view that they want to get across, which is rarely as easy as saying "this is what I think". And they both seem to enjoy debating. It's not that they don't have anything better to do. They just enjoy the debate. Just like it's not like you play SR because you don't have anything better to do, you just like to play it (I assume).
And maybe they'll keep going back and forth, but they don't seem to be angry with each other. Just trying to drive the point home. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 09:57 AM
Post
#320
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 17-April 05 Member No.: 7,341 |
Hehehehe... Speaking about Conan Doyle, you should know that he himself stoped using this "deductive reasoning" thinking that it could lead to misunderstanding most of the time... Indeed, the young Conan Doyle who was believing only in facts was really far away from the old one, that was a god believer, and stoped trusting science... Hope that we will see the same here with "non liking SR4" boyz (see, I didn't use anti this time). Be careful, deductive reasoning is a flawed method ! |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:02 AM
Post
#321
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
how 'bout inductive then?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 10:31 AM
Post
#322
|
|||||||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,314 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado Member No.: 185 |
And all I did was point out that the reasoning was flawed regardless and was not "admittedly incomplete" in the first place. As I've mentioned before this stood out because it is one of many conclusions made on this forum which do not stand up to the evidence. I had hoped that pointing out where conclusions drawn from obviously incomplete information could be wrong (under available information). Ellery went on to explain why the reasoning was correct and me to reply to that, in what has been a (I believe) reasonable and sensible debate (the type, fistandantilus3.0 has correctly surmised, I enjoy). Ellery's argument is based (in my mind) on the obvious discrepancy in values between the fixed TN5 in SR4 and the TN 6 in SR3 - and that alone. There was also an initial mistake in presenting that thought by associating it with a Force 6 spell. I contested that while there is no denying that a strict reading of the target number difficulty difference (20%) means Ellery is correct. However, there are numerous other (known) changes to the overall Magic and Core system framework of the game which make the original claim "that a Force 6 spell would be less important under the new system" patently ungrounded as well as any speculation to the effect that the 20% difficulty increase no longer exists in another aspect of the framework (note: I'm not saying it does. I'm just pointing put how misleading such conclusions can be).
Well, the easy answer is that this time there are enough known facts about the system to point to flaws in the logic and the conclusions drawn from said logic, that I can argue my point without resorting to the cowardly "I know more than you because I'm a playtester" card.
Not really. I think its a perfectly valid expenditure of my time and will take time from other things to poke holes and clarify erroneous speculation which can lead to further misunderstandings and biased assumptions about SR4. Particularly after the Ellery in particular has presented particularly constructive and well-thought out criticism and analysis, so its mostly an unfortunate coincidence this debate happens to focus on this particular post. Again, there lies the problem, this information was not posted as speculation or personal opinion it was posted as a logical conclusion (as many other erroneous conclusions have been in recent months). It isn't a logical conclusion if it fails to take into account (known) changes to the overall reference framework that element of the game works under. I reiterate, this would not have arisen had Ellery had posted "it looks like this won't be the case in the new system." or even if the argument had been presented clearly as "TN5 vs TN6 in a force 6 spell". |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jul 29 2005, 12:09 PM
Post
#323
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
It helps distract from the fact they're using Hit Points in SR4. :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jul 29 2005, 01:49 PM
Post
#324
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 144 Joined: 11-April 05 From: San Antonio, USA Member No.: 7,317 |
Not again! :(
Can we talk about something useful like when SOA will be released or what they are doing about SOLA. :P |
|
|
|
|
Jul 29 2005, 05:17 PM
Post
#325
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 511 Joined: 19-August 02 Member No.: 3,139 |
Or even just a schedule - GC only a few weeks away. There are books, a SR$ preview, and SR4 to get to print.
Just how are things going? Is there a projected release date for upcoming projects? |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th November 2024 - 09:43 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.