Aiming isn't hard. At least not in the way game mechancs work. It's the recoil that's bad. Doubling uncompensated recoil is probably the most realistic way of doing it IMHO. Similiar to firing a gun one handed.
But not suffering a penalty is probably fine too. I mean we already have 2 second combat rounds and I can take 4 passes and two two bursts each pass. So if I can take one aimed headshot every quarter of a second I don't see how shooting around a corner is so unrealistic as to be needing a houserule.
Full Version: Firing around corners
Concidering the vision from the smartgun will be a bit more narrow then your eyes, you could also imposse they have to take a simple action to "lock on" to the target.
You could also have a -2 penalty for the awkward firing postion and another -2 for having no depth perception.
And Ben by shooting around the corner they mean use your smartgun's camera stick it around the corner so only your hand is exposed. Not peeking around with your head.
You could also have a -2 penalty for the awkward firing postion and another -2 for having no depth perception.
And Ben by shooting around the corner they mean use your smartgun's camera stick it around the corner so only your hand is exposed. Not peeking around with your head.
So, by "shooting around a corner" do you mean while still holding the gun, or by having some strange contraption that holds the gun in place?
I'd think an engineer or even one of us serfs (especially in 2070) could pretty easily come up with something that you could hold that gripped the gun for you and was pretty absorbant of recoil. I mean, according to the BBB (if I remember correctly) you don't even have to squeeze the damn trigger, you just command it to shoot and it does it.
I'd think an engineer or even one of us serfs (especially in 2070) could pretty easily come up with something that you could hold that gripped the gun for you and was pretty absorbant of recoil. I mean, according to the BBB (if I remember correctly) you don't even have to squeeze the damn trigger, you just command it to shoot and it does it.
Yeah, I fully understand the question. Fortunately though you're still looking "through your eyes", it's just that your eyes are taking data from the camera and not light sources. The awkwardness is holding a weapon at the angle.
| QUOTE (Jack Kain) |
| Concidering the vision from the smartgun will be a bit more narrow then your eyes, you could also imposse they have to take a simple action to "lock on" to the target. You could also have a -2 penalty for the awkward firing postion and another -2 for having no depth perception. And Ben by shooting around the corner they mean use your smartgun's camera stick it around the corner so only your hand is exposed. Not peeking around with your head. |
you make the asumption that the field of vision would be narrow. And that depth perception would be a problem. We don't know how a smartgun works any more than we know how ritual spell casting works. The fact is that it does.
When you stick your hand around a corner and fire a pistol through your smartgun linked to your image link you have the listed -1 ranged modifier for fireing from cover. An attacker makeing ranged attacks at you from around the corner will have the -4 Good Cover ranged modifier.
If your weapon has conditional recoil mods those would not apply.
Vision modifiers apply depending on which vision modifiers you have added to your smartgun system. The vision systems on your head do not apply unless you expose your eyes.
If a weapon normaly requires two hands to use. Long arms, automatics larger than SMG, Heavy weapons, you would have to expose atleast both arms to fire the weapon without additional modifiers. In this case the cover modifyer drops from Good (-4), to partial (-2).
(I understand that normaly you do use an smg with two hands but SR does not grant a bonus for a foregrip so no penalty should be applied for not using it.)
Range modifyers apply as normal no matter what your shooting position might be. SR does not assume a rested shooting position in the range modifyers. SR does not provide bonuses for fireing from a rested shooting position with the exception of Bipod and Tripod gear. No penalty should be applied for "shooting from the hip" with a smartlinked gun. No penalty should be applied for shooting around a corner with a smartlinked gun.
No house rules needed unless you start to nerf levitation for ballance.
| QUOTE (OneTrikPony) |
| you make the asumption that the field of vision would be narrow. And that depth perception would be a problem. We don't know how a smartgun works any more than we know how ritual spell casting works. The fact is that it does. |
Yes, but we can make very well educated guesses on how well it works based uppon current modern day technology.
Currently video cameras lack depth perception, becuase the video feed comes from only one source. You can still sort of get an idea of how far away something is by the size comparisons of course, but you cant judge the distance anywhere near as accurately as with your own two pairs of eyes. Normal video feed lacks that 3d view. So it's hardly a streatch to assume that a guncam works the exact same way.
Afterall depending on how you look at it, it's just a refinement of technology. So instead of having a huge bulky pair of goggles, with a wire trailing to an even bigger, bulkier and heavy gun attachment. You instead have a piece of cyberware, or even just a pair of contact lenses which are ammazingly wireless devices, connecting to a tiny gun camera that is equally wireless.
Infact apparently that gun camera is so tiny it's position on the gun is totally ignored since you can say on an Ares Predator IV still mount under barrel, barrel, and top of barrel accessories. (Say like eh, tactical flashlight, silencer and if you really wanted to a scope or what ever)
oops, wrong thread... well, i had something to say here anyways 
yeah, i'm gonna have to say recoil would be unpleasant. i'm also gonna have to say that it should suffer more than just regular cover penalties, unless you've practised with the smartgun to the point where it's as comfortable as using your actual eye (read: take a specialisation in this. the specialisation will counter the 2 point penalty i would assign).
[edit 2] oh, and just for the record... pistols have no underside mount. [/edit 2]
yeah, i'm gonna have to say recoil would be unpleasant. i'm also gonna have to say that it should suffer more than just regular cover penalties, unless you've practised with the smartgun to the point where it's as comfortable as using your actual eye (read: take a specialisation in this. the specialisation will counter the 2 point penalty i would assign).
[edit 2] oh, and just for the record... pistols have no underside mount. [/edit 2]
Could have sworn they did, since the underside is generally where you mount laser sights and tactical mounts IRL. And you still have the 'barrel' mount for a silencer.
| QUOTE (Kesslan @ Dec 11 2006, 11:36 PM) |
| Yes, but we can make very well educated guesses on how well it works based uppon current modern day technology. Currently video cameras lack depth perception, becuase the video feed comes from only one source. You can still sort of get an idea of how far away something is by the size comparisons of course, but you cant judge the distance anywhere near as accurately as with your own two pairs of eyes. Normal video feed lacks that 3d view. So it's hardly a streatch to assume that a guncam works the exact same way. Afterall depending on how you look at it, it's just a refinement of technology... |
I say that's a big mistake to make.
A: the smartlink includes a range finder. So you shouldn't have to worry about depth perception. Do you use binoculars on the top of your hunting rifle? What is your off eye doing when you line up iron sights?
B: We shouldn't limit the game or gear to diferent aplications of the things we have today. It's 64 whole years from now. They have stuff we don't and not all of it is stuff that we have on the research bench right now. It's a big mistake to simply assume that the mundane side of the game is "just a refinement of technology" that we allready have.
[edit] echo kesslan on the underbarrel mounts for sidearms
I think the best way to deal with firing around corners is to call it "good cover" and apply the normal mods for that.
It would totally change combat, perhaps even ruin combat, if people could shoot with total impunity by exposing nothing but their guns. You'd get people hiding from each other just blasting at each others guns, hoping to knock the weapon out of the enemy's hands.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of it, but rules wise I think it should just count as good cover. Otherwise, you have to figure out how to balance a tactic that lets people attack without exposing them to danger whatsoever.
It would totally change combat, perhaps even ruin combat, if people could shoot with total impunity by exposing nothing but their guns. You'd get people hiding from each other just blasting at each others guns, hoping to knock the weapon out of the enemy's hands.
There's nothing wrong with the concept of it, but rules wise I think it should just count as good cover. Otherwise, you have to figure out how to balance a tactic that lets people attack without exposing them to danger whatsoever.
| QUOTE (OneTrikPony) |
| A: the smartlink includes a range finder. So you shouldn't have to worry about depth perception. Do you use binoculars on the top of your hunting rifle? What is your off eye doing when you line up iron sights? B: We shouldn't limit the game or gear to diferent aplications of the things we have today. It's 64 whole years from now. They have stuff we don't and not all of it is stuff that we have on the research bench right now. It's a big mistake to simply assume that the mundane side of the game is "just a refinement of technology" that we allready have. |
Well I didnt mean to imply that it's 'only' a refinment. Obviously it's not, afterall we still dont have smartlinks. We've got the basicis of the technology that might yet lead to a smartlink though in the various gun cameras that have been comming out in the past ten years though. Also 64 years, isnt really that much time at all where weapons technology is concerned. I mean 2060-2070 the smartlink basically goes from version 2.0 to version 3.0 that is just even more minaturaized and slightly improved. (Since it now gives a flat out +2 bonuse as opposed to a bonus to called shots and a penalty reduction, and it now incorporates a range finder where as before they were totally seperate)
Also on the point of the scope, no you dont have a pair of binoculars, but when you are using that scope. Not only do you not have as much depth perception, but you also have an every increasingly narrow field of view. Which is exactly what you'd have with a system like the smartlink. The whole actual point of a smartlink has allways been and still is 'Your gun is pointing here!' add crosshair to your normal sight.
If you use the sort of specialized subset, sure you could view through the gun camera and thus shoot around corners, but your range of view is then purely limited to that crosshair. So it would in that case be to my way of thinking at least be -exactly- like peering through a scope. Meaning you'd at the very least be suffering perception modifiers.
| QUOTE (ixombie) |
| There's nothing wrong with the concept of it, but rules wise I think it should just count as good cover. Otherwise, you have to figure out how to balance a tactic that lets people attack without exposing them to danger whatsoever. |
The counter is to use air bursting munitions. The wall you are hiding behind is of no use when Mr. Grenade blows up two feet past it, at about 3 feet from your head.
Or use an indirect combat spell, or hide behind a corner yourself, or simply shoot through what they are hiding behind.
Yeah personally I would do up a set of houserules to surround such a thing. Because fighting in such a style has benifits but it also has some very real downsides. Holding a gun in an unusual position, not actually seeing the target, relying on a guncam to do all the seeing for you etc.
So I'd setup a set of penalties as such:
-Double uncompensated recoil on any burst/auto fire.
-A penalty (assuming there isnt one allready) for firing rifles single handed.
-Short of a troll I simply wouldnt allow firing of a heavy weapon single handed without a very real chance of some severe injury. And even a Troll would have propblems in most cases I'm sure, at the very least they'd get the one handed firing penalty.
-A perception penalty on visual tests to notice things around said corner etc. Personally I would never allow a very tiny guncam to have the same field of view as your own two eyes. But thats me. I treat that kinda thing just like a RL scope.
Now some of this stuff could actually be countered to a degree. A gyro mount for example basically adds a mechanical arm that assits in supporting the weapon. If it's something akin to the one used in the movie Aliens it might well infact be possible to use one to assit you in firing around corners. Arguably since it's used to counter penalties to movement and recoil with heavy weapons, I'd probably allow it to negate the one handed firing penalty of a rifle.
So I'd setup a set of penalties as such:
-Double uncompensated recoil on any burst/auto fire.
-A penalty (assuming there isnt one allready) for firing rifles single handed.
-Short of a troll I simply wouldnt allow firing of a heavy weapon single handed without a very real chance of some severe injury. And even a Troll would have propblems in most cases I'm sure, at the very least they'd get the one handed firing penalty.
-A perception penalty on visual tests to notice things around said corner etc. Personally I would never allow a very tiny guncam to have the same field of view as your own two eyes. But thats me. I treat that kinda thing just like a RL scope.
Now some of this stuff could actually be countered to a degree. A gyro mount for example basically adds a mechanical arm that assits in supporting the weapon. If it's something akin to the one used in the movie Aliens it might well infact be possible to use one to assit you in firing around corners. Arguably since it's used to counter penalties to movement and recoil with heavy weapons, I'd probably allow it to negate the one handed firing penalty of a rifle.
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| Personally I would never allow a very tiny guncam to have the same field of view as your own two eyes. But thats me. I treat that kinda thing just like a RL scope. |
Why? A field of view like a pair of human eyes is really easy with a composite lens (fisheye on the outside). Assuming that you have a decent optical pickup (say like a high end 2006 digital camera) and decent image processing technology (say like a high end 2006 video card) you should have absolutely no trouble producing an image that's basically the same as what a pair of human eyes would pick up.
There's no reason the camera of a smartgun would have any smaller field of view than your kodak. It certainly wouldn't have as restricted a field of view as a scope. If the smartgun had the vision magnification option and it was active then I could see the GM making a ruleing on certain actions. The fact is that a restricted field of view doesn't have any effect on the shot you're taking with your current action unless the target is inside two meters. As for the size of the cam. If your going to house rule that the Smartlink is just a very tiny cam you should think about the field of view you get on your cameraphone.
Recoil modifyers are allready covered by the book. If you have a pistol you're not worried about it. If you have any weapon that has a stock you don't get the benefit of the stock. Why house rule that any further. If we've had 64 years to develop the smartlink, we've had 64 years to develop shoot around the corner tecnique. If your going to make house rules that normal people aren't strong enough to handle a pistol when the're not in the propper stance you ought to house rule that people with above average strength get recoil bonuses.
I reiterate: you don't need depth perception when lineing up a target because you have a range finder. If you're shooting a weapon that only has one grip you can do so around the corner with "good Cover" -4, if your shooting a weapon that has a stock or requires two hands you can do so around the corner with "partial cover" -2, and you cant have the recoil benefit of the stock. If you wan't the blind fire modifyer use a "Smart Fireing Platform" or a drone. All of this is already in the book.
[edit] echo chandon. this may be the way trid works. It may not be necessary to have binocular cameras with the right electronics. Anyhow it's moot for the purposes of the smartlink because you have a rangefinder.
[edit 2] above I said vision modification, I ment magnification
Recoil modifyers are allready covered by the book. If you have a pistol you're not worried about it. If you have any weapon that has a stock you don't get the benefit of the stock. Why house rule that any further. If we've had 64 years to develop the smartlink, we've had 64 years to develop shoot around the corner tecnique. If your going to make house rules that normal people aren't strong enough to handle a pistol when the're not in the propper stance you ought to house rule that people with above average strength get recoil bonuses.
I reiterate: you don't need depth perception when lineing up a target because you have a range finder. If you're shooting a weapon that only has one grip you can do so around the corner with "good Cover" -4, if your shooting a weapon that has a stock or requires two hands you can do so around the corner with "partial cover" -2, and you cant have the recoil benefit of the stock. If you wan't the blind fire modifyer use a "Smart Fireing Platform" or a drone. All of this is already in the book.
[edit] echo chandon. this may be the way trid works. It may not be necessary to have binocular cameras with the right electronics. Anyhow it's moot for the purposes of the smartlink because you have a rangefinder.
[edit 2] above I said vision modification, I ment magnification
| QUOTE (Kesslan) |
| Personally I would never allow a very tiny guncam to have the same field of view as your own two eyes. But thats me. I treat that kinda thing just like a RL scope. |
The guncam, combined with image link and smart link, allows you to see exactly as if you were there. So it's not a "very tiny guncam" - it's your eyesight, from another PoV. With mods, it's better than your eyes. It's just like any remote viewing....
| QUOTE (Lord Ben) |
| Aiming isn't hard. At least not in the way game mechancs work. It's the recoil that's bad. Doubling uncompensated recoil is probably the most realistic way of doing it IMHO. Similiar to firing a gun one handed. |
aiming should, seriously, be the hardest part. it's like trying to do something while using a mirror to see what you're doing--your every action is in a different direction than your point of view says it should be.
| QUOTE (mfb @ Dec 12 2006, 02:13 AM) | ||
aiming should, seriously, be the hardest part. it's like trying to do something while using a mirror to see what you're doing--your every action is in a different direction than your point of view says it should be. |
how could it be like a mirror, left is still left, unless you hold the weapon upside down or sideways. Orientation doesn't matter anyway because you have the progected impact point modified for range and with progected vectors. What's the issue?
[yet another edit] the smargun link should give you something like the Predator had in the first movie. He never would have missed if he hadn't been useing super slow progectiles.
| QUOTE (lorechaser) | ||
The guncam, combined with image link and smart link, allows you to see exactly as if you were there. So it's not a "very tiny guncam" - it's your eyesight, from another PoV. With mods, it's better than your eyes. It's just like any remote viewing.... |
Except it IS a very tiny guncam. Your not technically using your eyes to see whats around the corner, your using that guncam. Your guncam does not equal your eyes. Your using your eyes to see what the guncam is seeing.
Also 'any remote viewing' is very subjective. Those tiny cameras you can stick under a door? Very similar concept, you can have lowligth on them etc, but your view area is much more limited than if you were able to see into that room with your own eyes. The field of vision is much tighter.
Hit that double posting error again.
again i say cameraphone. You have at LEAST a 90 degree field of vision AND it has level three vision modification, vision MAGnification, thermographic, low light and it tells you exactly where the impact will be in relation to where ever your gun is.
Missed the earlier camera reference, though personally my own phone sure as hell doesnt have a 90 degree field of view. And course jumping forward to 2070 on those things will obviously go a long way. So yeah allright I'll certainly conceed to that one.
Zooming in though would still be abit of an issue of course. And zoomed out then in that case I'd probably put it akin to not using a smartlink but be more like iron sights. There has to be some trade off since you are a) looking out of a single focal point as opposed to two when your using your own eyes. And B) your gun wont ever be held as steadily by your hand as your own actual view will be. Just look at the waver on any laser sight. Thats only going to be magnified when your looking through that camera. It's the same problem with scopes. Which is effectively what your using at that point.
Zooming in though would still be abit of an issue of course. And zoomed out then in that case I'd probably put it akin to not using a smartlink but be more like iron sights. There has to be some trade off since you are a) looking out of a single focal point as opposed to two when your using your own eyes. And B) your gun wont ever be held as steadily by your hand as your own actual view will be. Just look at the waver on any laser sight. Thats only going to be magnified when your looking through that camera. It's the same problem with scopes. Which is effectively what your using at that point.
| QUOTE (OneTrikPony) |
| how could it be like a mirror, left is still left, unless you hold the weapon upside down or sideways. Orientation doesn't matter anyway because you have the progected impact point modified for range and with progected vectors. What's the issue? |
the issue is that left isn't left, it's towards your body. right isn't right, it's away from your body. not to mention that instead of being aided in your aiming by the fact that your wrist and elbow line up with your weapon, you have to rely solely on your wrist.
seriously. take your mouse, and twist your hand so that you're holding it sideways. now move it around. unless you're some kind of inhumanly dextrous freak, you'll have a bit of trouble getting the mouse to go where you want it to go. now increase the need for precision by about a hundredfold--keeping in mind that you can actually look at the mouse with your own two eyes, rather than depending on an outside PoV--and you'll have an inkling of how hard it is to aim a gun around a corner.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| Seriously. take your mouse, and twist your hand so that you're holding it sideways. now move it around. unless you're some kind of inhumanly dextrous freak, you'll have a bit of trouble getting the mouse to go where you want it to go. now increase the need for precision by about a hundredfold--keeping in mind that you can actually look at the mouse with your own two eyes, rather than depending on an outside PoV--and you'll have an inkling of how hard it is to aim a gun around a corner. |
But a lot of this discussion is ascribing difficulties to the smartgun that don't exist in game.
If that were true, then simply using a smartgun to fire would be harder, as you're looking through the gun to use a smartlink.
And there would be penalties for firing in directions you aren't looking - part of the inherent value of a smartgun, to me, is being able to fire behind you while running, etc.
And yes, your mouse example is interesting. Because to me, it's 100% why this *is* possible.
The idea of a mouse is perfect for a smart gun. It's an abstraction. You take a piece of plastic on a flat surface, and use it to manipulate a pointer on another surface that's in a different alignment. Sure, up is up, down is down. But the accuracy acquired by people like Fatal1ty using a precision mouse in an FPS? That's a learned skill that completely convinces me you can use a smartgun to aim just fine.
| QUOTE (lorechaser) |
| But a lot of this discussion is ascribing difficulties to the smartgun that don't exist in game. If that were true, then simply using a smartgun to fire would be harder, as you're looking through the gun to use a smartlink. |
you mean a guncam? a smartlink just imposes a targeting reticle over whatever field of vision you're using.
and a mouse is a terrible example for many reasons. the first is, compared to shooting a gun, it requires no precision at all; the amount of room you have for mistakes when you when using a mouse in an FPS is far, far, far greater than the room you have when firing a gun--a mistake of a millimeter or two on a mouse means you still probably hit your target, while a millimeter or two on a gun means you probably missed. second, a mouse only moves in two dimensions, while a gun moves in three. third, a mouse doesn't rotate at all; a gun rotates as far as your wrist, elbow, shoulder, and torso will allow it. fourth, when you line up a shot with a mouse, you only have to connect two points--the pointer, and the target; when you line up a shot with a gun, you have to line up at least three--the target, the front of your gun, and the back of your gun (this is true no matter if you're using iron sights or the most advanced electronic targeting imaginable--basic geometry and physics demand it).
now, that said, who's tried holding their mouse sideways and playing an FPS?
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| you mean a guncam? a smartlink just imposes a targeting reticle over whatever field of vision you're using. |
No, he means a smartlink. Those come with a cam, too... at least in SR4, which is the topic here.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| now, that said, who's tried holding their mouse sideways and playing an FPS? |
I did; it's akward at first, like the first 30seconds, but you get used to it real fast (though clicking is a issue).
note: it's easier with a round mouse, like the old iMac mouses.
QUOTE (mfb)
now, that said, who's tried holding their mouse sideways and playing an FPS?
Does Red Steel count?
You don't have to line up the front and the back of the gun. They're already lined up. If they aren't then you have bigger problems than aiming. With traditional aiming you have to line up the front and rear sights with your eyes, but that is different. Because the smartlink reticle serves as your targeting device, the physical sights on the gun are irreverent. Holding the run sideways is still stupid because it changes the ballistics completely, but so long as your smartlink registers tilt it should not interfere with aiming.
Anyone who's ever fired a gun, or indeed simulated aiming with a gun-like object, knows that it is orders of magnitude more complex an action than point-clicking with a mouse, and requires accurate fine manipulation of an unstable 3d object with, if you're a stupid fucker, only one point of support. Having the sight linked into your eyes just means there's 3 instead of 4 things to line up (though with certain types of sights the eye doesn't have to be lined up very well at all). The analogy only barely works for shifting the directions for which you get feedback by 90 degrees.
I wonder how much it actually matters how easy it is to fire around corners IRL? We're playing a game, and a game should be fun.
Now imagine: hallway where shadowrunners have encountered heavy security resistance. They immediately duck into doorways and point their guns around the corners. The security guards do the same. If anyone tries to assault the other position, they're dead because they can't hit the enemy while the enemy can hit them. A gun battle ensues where pistols and assault rifles are shooting at each other, their firers safely protected by the reinforced walls. This would not be fun, it would be boring and silly.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to counter this tactic, but if you allow people to fire around corners without being vulnerable to getting shot back, it immediately becomes the default tactic. It's an utterly stupid no-brainer. the first impulse when a fight breaks out is "omg, where's the nearest corner for me to fire around?" It's almost as absurd as the tactics people develop in FPS's, like the Jedi Knight game where everyone ran around stabbing backwards since the backwards stab was unblockable insta-kill.
You should be able to fire around corners, but it should count as "good cover," giving your enemies a -4 to hit you and the -1 for firing from cover. I'm not sure if anyone is actually thinking that firing around a corner should give you immunity to being hit, but if they are, this is what I'm against.
As for the realism argument, if you just use a sensible set of modifiers for shooting around corners, it's not really relevant. It might be the hardest thing ever, or it might be easy, who cares? It gives no more benefit or detriment than crouching behind a car or hiding in thick underbrush, so there's no sensible reason to object to it.
Now imagine: hallway where shadowrunners have encountered heavy security resistance. They immediately duck into doorways and point their guns around the corners. The security guards do the same. If anyone tries to assault the other position, they're dead because they can't hit the enemy while the enemy can hit them. A gun battle ensues where pistols and assault rifles are shooting at each other, their firers safely protected by the reinforced walls. This would not be fun, it would be boring and silly.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to counter this tactic, but if you allow people to fire around corners without being vulnerable to getting shot back, it immediately becomes the default tactic. It's an utterly stupid no-brainer. the first impulse when a fight breaks out is "omg, where's the nearest corner for me to fire around?" It's almost as absurd as the tactics people develop in FPS's, like the Jedi Knight game where everyone ran around stabbing backwards since the backwards stab was unblockable insta-kill.
You should be able to fire around corners, but it should count as "good cover," giving your enemies a -4 to hit you and the -1 for firing from cover. I'm not sure if anyone is actually thinking that firing around a corner should give you immunity to being hit, but if they are, this is what I'm against.
As for the realism argument, if you just use a sensible set of modifiers for shooting around corners, it's not really relevant. It might be the hardest thing ever, or it might be easy, who cares? It gives no more benefit or detriment than crouching behind a car or hiding in thick underbrush, so there's no sensible reason to object to it.
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| You don't have to line up the front and the back of the gun. They're already lined up. If they aren't then you have bigger problems than aiming. With traditional aiming you have to line up the front and rear sights with your eyes, but that is different. Because the smartlink reticle serves as your targeting device, the physical sights on the gun are irreverent. Holding the run sideways is still stupid because it changes the ballistics completely, but so long as your smartlink registers tile it should not interfere with aiming. |
hyz, i'll forgive you for saying that because i presume you've never fired a gun before. the front and back of the gun are decidedly not automatically lined up--and by "lined up" i mean "within tenths or hundredths of a millimeter of being on the same axis", not "generally somewhere near the same line".
lining up the front and back of the gun is not just important when you're using iron sights. it's important when you ever want the bullet to go from your gun to your target. yes, the smartlink will tell you when the front and back of your gun are in line with your target--but that doesn't mean that getting them in line is easy, it just means you know when you've got it.
using a gun, even with a smartlink, is not just point-and-click like a mouse, okay? like i said above, there is an entire third dimension you have to worry about when you're using a gun, plus rotation, plus little things like breathing (inhaling/exhaling will throw your aim off) and squeezing the trigger without jerking (granted, smartlink cyberware will solve that neatly).
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| No, he means a smartlink. Those come with a cam, too... at least in SR4, which is the topic here. |
they still do two completely different things. a guncam is just a camera on your gun. a smartlink puts a targeting reticle in your field of vision that tells you where your bullet is going to go. the fact that you're using a smartlink reticle does not, by any means, mean that you're viewing the world through the eye of your gun. even in SR4, which is what i'm discussing.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ Dec 12 2006, 12:15 PM) |
| Anyone who's ever fired a gun, or indeed simulated aiming with a gun-like object, knows that it is orders of magnitude more complex an action than point-clicking with a mouse, and requires accurate fine manipulation of an unstable 3d object with, if you're a stupid fucker, only one point of support. Having the sight linked into your eyes just means there's 3 instead of 4 things to line up (though with certain types of sights the eye doesn't have to be lined up very well at all). The analogy only barely works for shifting the directions for which you get feedback by 90 degrees. |
But again, so much of that is taken up by the smartlink. In theory, the smartlink gives immediate, speed of thought feedback on your aiming. If you are off, you get a mental nudge that says "Move the gun a touch to the right." It's something so fundamentally different from what we're used to, that I can't even really consider what it's like. I know the computer in the smartlink will adjust for range, ammo, and conditions. I don't know what else it will do.
It's been 8ish years since I last fired a gun, so I don't have a recent frame of reference, but I was a pretty good shot back in the day, to the order of winning a couple local accuracy tournaments with target pistols.
The more I think about it, the more I'm okay with removing the +2 smartlink bonus as a house rule to represent that the smartlink is now allowing you to shoot, so it's no longer a bonus.
| QUOTE (lorechaser) |
| But again, so much of that is taken up by the smartlink. In theory, the smartlink gives immediate, speed of thought feedback on your aiming. If you are off, you get a mental nudge that says "Move the gun a touch to the right." It's something so fundamentally different from what we're used to, that I can't even really consider what it's like. I know the computer in the smartlink will adjust for range, ammo, and conditions. I don't know what else it will do. |
that's got nothing to do with it. it's not a matter of knowing where to move the gun--a competent marksman, or even someone who's played lots of FPS games, knows where to move the gun in order to line it up with the target. the problem is actually exerting the fine control necessary to make those tiny changes to the gun's position and attitude without overcorrecting.
You have to remember that smartlink in SR4 has no DNI connection most of the time. It just throws up a dot/crosshair in your AR vision of where the gun is pointed at. Yes, there is a camera involved, but then you have to go off it's vision modifiers... hope you bought some good mods.
there's that, too. a purely external smartlink isn't going to give you those nudges or feedback.
Previous discussion of this topic, for those interested.
| QUOTE (ixombie) |
| You should be able to fire around corners, but it should count as "good cover," giving your enemies a -4 to hit you and the -1 for firing from cover. I'm not sure if anyone is actually thinking that firing around a corner should give you immunity to being hit, but if they are, this is what I'm against. |
That's certainly my objection as well.
Well that, and the fact that some people think it should be just as easy to shoot this way as it would be in the standard manner, which to me is just totally absurd.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| they still do two completely different things. a guncam is just a camera on your gun. a smartlink puts a targeting reticle that tells you where your bullet is going to go. |
It's an integrated package, so dependencies are not that easy to discern.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| the fact that you're using a smartlink reticle does not, by any means, mean that you're viewing the world through the eye of your gun. even in SR4, which is what i'm discussing. |
That may or may be so, but that's your assumption - dynamic extension and shifting of the PoV is well within the capabilities of SR hardware, too.
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
That's certainly my objection as well. Well that, and the fact that some people think it should be just as easy to shoot this way as it would be in the standard manner, which to me is just totally absurd. |
I fully agree that it would, in theory, play havoc with your ability to steady yourself. I'm not sure how it would impact your aiming abilities if it's something you're used to. And I'm now 100% sure that anything logical to compensate is a house rule, so I need to figure out my thoughts so I can make my players aware of them before we start.
| QUOTE (eidolon @ Dec 12 2006, 01:42 PM) |
| Previous discussion of this topic, for those interested. |
haha. i must've been feeling pretty phlegmatic that day. i remember pondering the physical problems with aiming/firing around a corner, but apparently i never got around to posting about them.
| QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig) |
| That may or may be so, but that's your assumption - dynamic extension and shifting of the PoV is well within the capabilities of SR hardware, too. |
there are enough problems with it that it'd be silly, at least to me, to assume that using a smartlink involves switching your POV. for one thing, doing so would seriously impact your ability to walk normally. you can explain some of the problems away without too much trouble, but it requires much less work to simply assume that you don't automatically switch to guncam view when you're using a smartlink.
smartlinks and guncams may be integrated, but that doesn't change the fact that their functions are completely different. the magnifying glass on a swiss army knife is not the correct tool for cutting a rope.
Huh, I always considered it obvious that the gun-cam popped up a HUD whenever the targeting reticle would be out of your field of view. (or if you specifically called it up)
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| the magnifying glass on a swiss army knife is not the correct tool for cutting a rope. |
Well, if it's sunny outside and the Swiss Army Knife's blade and scissors are broken ...
| QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Dec 12 2006, 01:57 PM) |
| Huh, I always considered it obvious that the gun-cam popped up a HUD whenever the targeting reticle would be out of your field of view. (or if you specifically called it up) |
i can agree with that. i just don't agree that using your weapon in that manner is the default. to use Fortune's reply as an example, you can use the magnifying glass on your swiss army knife to burn through a rope. that doesn't make it the best tool for cutting a rope, and i'd certainly give someone a hefty penalty in-game for using a magnifying glass instead of a knife.
I agree. That would not be the default.
edited for clarity
edited for clarity
| QUOTE (ixombie) |
| You should be able to fire around corners, but it should count as "good cover," giving your enemies a -4 to hit you and the -1 for firing from cover. |
That's what the rules seem to say. I don't see what the hard part is here. The gun-cam is going to make it somewhat easier to get into that position, and that's the whole story...
*froth, spittle*
| QUOTE (mfb @ Dec 12 2006, 06:32 PM) |
| plus little things like breathing (inhaling/exhaling will throw your aim off) and squeezing the trigger without jerking |
Hmm. Shouldn't having a heavily cybered body provide a more stable firing platform?
I have to imagine someone with cyber from top to bottom isn't really going to have to worry about a lot of things that throw off aim in meat body, like the tiny muscle twitches, breathing movement, etc. Heck, even recoil to some degree. At the very least, one should be able to "freeze" the body in place momentarily for aiming.
Also, a heavy cyber body should really be able to benefit from drone-style aiming software as well, being capable of much greater precision than a meat body.
As for the aiming-around-corners thing, Smartlinks already make it so you don't have to have the traditional eye-gun-target line of operation. You can hip-shoot and aim just as well. Sticking your arm to the side would probably make aiming harder, but only due to awkward positioning, not because it's out-of-line with your traditional aiming position. Again something a cyberarm shouldn't have much difficulty compensating for.
-karma
That would be represented by purchasing very high agility in your cyberlimbs.
| QUOTE (KarmaInferno) |
| As for the aiming-around-corners thing, Smartlinks already make it so you don't have to have the traditional eye-gun-target line of operation. You can hip-shoot and aim just as well. Sticking your arm to the side would probably make aiming harder, but only due to awkward positioning, not because it's out-of-line with your traditional aiming position. Again something a cyberarm shouldn't have much difficulty compensating for. |
not really true. as i've said elsewhere, accurate shooting is not simply a matter of being able to put your weapon on-target, it's a matter of being able to keep your weapon on-target. that means stability, and the most stable firing position is with your weapon supported directly in front of you. if using a guncam is easy enough, you could make an argument for the stability of firing with your weapon extended in pretty much any direction, straight out from the shoulder. that still rules out firing around corners from most positions.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.