Dude, if you're just going to ignore any logical argument because...well....apparently no good reason, then what's the point? You haven't made any sort of sensible argument in favor of your point of view, and all you've done is dismiss every sensible argument without providing even a *shred* of actual criticism. Even your single-target scenario doesn't make any goddamn sense. If you're going to claim that this is about realism, then your argument has to make sense in the real world. Human vision doesn't work the way that you're claiming, and neither does successfully targeting with a pistol.

If, on the other hand, you're going to claim that this is about game balance, then make an argument based on that. This whole "my ridiculous crap is right just because I say it is" thing is getting really annoying.

Are you just projecting, or what? As I said from the beginning, you're just stating things and calling them facts. How many times are you going to vaguely assert 'human vision doesn't work that way'? That's the definition of 'my ridiculous crap is right just because I say it is'… and you're right about it.

I think you'll find that the very first thing I did was say 'it's just game balance, realism arguments will be a total mess'. However, because you charged in with opinions blazing, I did engage you at the level of the SR4 world. You grossly mischaracterized what a smartgun is and how it works, and then the vague 'facts' started recurring. I also like the way you're using 'logical', 'sensible', 'criticism', etc. to mean 'agreeing with me'.

But, because I'm an optimistic with bad short-term memory, I'll repeat myself:

Smartlinks/laser pointers add a dot to your normal vision (ignoring irrelevant aspects like ammo count). This dot helps you aim; in the case of the smartlink, it helps more due to physics calculation. Two guns, two dots. It does not make sense for the dots to stop helping entirely just because your attention is divided (two targets), and it makes even less sense when your attention is *not* (one target). The same dots are still there, in your normal field of vision, so they're still helpful. Multiple targets *is* hard, which is why it has its own independent penalty (which should be bigger, alas). Until you present credible evidence that having the dots doesn't help at all in either of these contexts, your assertion is not better than mine.

Given that the smartgun bonus is an eternal component of the DP, adding it is not slowing down the game; taking it away is. Given that the multi-target penalty will apply independently of the smartgun's presence, there is no effect on game speed *at all* from it. What could reasonably be expected to slow the game is remembering to remove the otherwise constant smartgun bonus. If this is even a real concern at all; I don't know, it's your argument.

You're right, there's 1 feed. It's 1 feed that's hitting both eyes. It's the BRAIN that interprets, but the tech is hitting the eyes. Having only 1 dot appear on 1 eye is going to throw your depth perception off. I think the 1 smartgun feed is feeding 2 dots. 1 per eye. If you have 2 smartgun feeds going in, it's 4 dots, 2 per eye, & the brain is trying to figure out how to interpret those 4 dots into 2 dots.

An experiment you can try is closing 1 eye and holding an index card with a dot on it in front of you. Do the same, but no card to the other eye. Do this multiple times and see if the dot always lines up or appears to be the same distance. Try moving the card to varying distances. If you do this fast enough & multiple times, you'll see a weird vertigo effect where things seem skewed (at least ti did for me).

If you think of the dot as the sights on a gun, there's a rear sight and a front sight. Without both working together, aiming is a pain. Using a scope is different. it flattens the target a bit & gives you a distance in numbers. Its up to the shooter to guess how the bullet trajectory will go when it gets to that far of a distance.

I do think that if SR has nanites & tech that can enhance muscle & nerves... why don't we have a way to help people separate input information so multiple feeds like 2 smartgun links are feasible. Maybe a new deltaware cost smartlink can give that stuff? Houserule?

Actually yes, it does.

A smartlink is little more than a smarter laser dot or crosshair without the laser or having to hold the weapon up to your eye. It has a few other minor features, like feeding you information about your weapon and accounting for range and whatnot. It's doesn't affect your brain in the slightest. It doesn't let you overcome the basic limitations your brain has. Keeping precise aim (which is what the bonus represents) on two objects or from two objects is a nightmare for our simple little minds. They're simply not made to do that.

Just getting two laser pointers to focus on the exact same spot and holding it there for any measure of time takes quite a bit of patience, and even when you do, it's a pain in the ass to keep them both there compared to do ing i with just one. And that's when you're calm and relaxed. Trying to maintain them on different targets is just as hard, and if they're far enough apart that you have to move your eye (even just a smidge), the difficulty goes up and up.

Trying to do it in split second, in a live-or-die combat situation, with your heart beating a mile a minute... it's all but impossible. Just like it is trying to use two crosshairs at the same time.

I dig it, Saint Hallow, but the smartlink already deals with the binocular issue. That's its job. It does it with one dot, it can certainly do it for 2 dots. AR does it in SR4 all the time with a lot more than that: you can dynamically recolor all enemies red, or give all orks cartoon mustaches, all in real time, all in full 3D, whatever. Maybe the dots are different colors, different shapes, whatever. But this is an issue that SR4 tech has long mastered, according to the information we have about the world.

I also totally get your rear-front sight point. But again, that's what the smartgun is doing for you, and that's *why* it's doing it. And the bullet trajectory: again, the smartgun's complete raison d'être.

I fully agree that all bets are off if we're talking about use scopes, which is why AFAIK we're not.

Final side note: I've long supported adding a really clear system of sense/sensor/feed distinctions in SR4, because what we have now is a vague mess. I mean, do you make a Sensor test when using a guncam? Who knows. But until that day, we have to work with what we've got.

--
Aw, come on, Ol' Scratch. You're saying you can aim two guns at two targets better with no dots than 2 dots? (Hell, equally badly?) Or even one dot (only one gun has a laser, let's say). And again, for one target? I'm sorry, if you're saying that, I'll have to see the experimental data.

It's not just me. Saint Hallow told you the same thing about human vision. So would a basic knowledge of human visual perception. Look it up.


What's your argument in terms of game balance? That the world would end if you don't get a measly +2 dice bonus when dual-wielding with smartlinks?


No, I accurately described smartgun systems as involving gun cameras and visual information passed on to the viewer; I further stated that a human being could not perform precision targeting on two disparate sets of visual stimulus at the same time. If you bothered to read your book (page 322) you'd see that I'm right about the cameras, shooting around corners, etc.


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


We already have someone who volunteered to test your theory on two targets, so we already know you're wrong about that. With that in mind, I see no reason to believe you with regards to one target. In combat, against a moving target, you're "just" trying to aim at one target from two different angles using a brain that was designed to focus on one point in your vision at a time.


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

another good experiment to try is to goto a video arcade (if they still exist in your local area). Find an FPS shooter game for multiple players. House of the Dead, GunBlade, etc... try to play as both characters and use a gun in each hand. See how shooting at separate targets or the same target is when you have 2 target cross hairs on your screen.

Some of us have done this (spent more than I care to admit to). Shooting at 1 target with both guns is easy, but I did notice I tended to keep my aim towards center of screen. When trying to hit 2 separate targets, I screwed up 1 gun always. Drift & shooting arm weakness.

Jesus Christ, how hard is this to understand?! First of all, it's a crosshair, not a dot. Check the book. Second of all, it's feeding the visual information to your eyes...in order to make the crosshairs appear properly in your vision, it is sending those crosshairs to EACH EYE. It looks like one crosshair, but it's actually two. Your brain puts the two together and makes one. That's what he's trying to explain to you.

If you double the info, your brain is how trying to combine four crosshairs into two crosshairs; fine, but you can only focus on one at a time, for the same reason that you can't read a book in each hand at the same time.

I've tried this; the only reason it's even possible is that the targets aren't moving that much, so you can lock both guns in one place. Even then, my accuracy was considerably worse than it was aiming just one gun.

My game balance argument is that they take away the +2 to weaken 2-gun shooting. Duh. I've certainly never said 2-gun shooting should be stronger.

You described using the smartguns in a 'guncam-only' mode. That's a very niche case, and not relevant to this. That's 'mischaracterizing', which is why I helped you out.

JonathanC, you haven't given any such facts. You have alluded to their supposed existence; you'll find this is not the same thing. Since I'm not the one spouting claims about my 'goddamned visual system', I'll leave the fact-finding to you.

Again, no, Ol' Scratch did not perform the experiments I suggested. He did something else.

At no point did I say 'add then take away'. I said 'leave it added, and then use the *normal* multi-target penalties that you would be using already, regardless'.

Crosshair means dot means circle means reticule. You can handle this, and 'dot' is a shorter word… and you'll recall that this whole argument applies equally to laser sights which project a what? (Dot.)

--
Saint Hallow, that's *exactly* what I've said: shooting at one target shouldn't be too hard. And now try that game with the dots turned off. My prediction is that the dots help, regardless. I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but not to be shouted down by JC's vague appeals to common sense.

--
Look, I hear you: 2 eyes, 4 dots, 2 dots. In what way does that matter at all? The technology feeds it properly. If you can get one dot, if you can get whole AR scenes of a dozen independent elements, you can handle 2 dots.

Ah, but again, would your accuracy with 2 guns be *even* worse with no crosshairs at all? Again, I bet yes. No one said that 2 guns should be equal to one gun.

Wow, the "I'm too lazy to Google" defense. Haven't seen that one in a while. Here, read this. I can't wait to see the load of bull you come up with to avoid looking like someone who skipped a few months in science class.

What am I supposed to be defending? I'm making no claims about the 'goddamned visual system'… and if 'making claims' means providing *any* facts at all, neither are you.

To re-re-re-restate it: the single target/dual gun scenario explicitly assumes that both dots are fully in focus (in fact, that they're on the same point, though this isn't necessary). Focus is a non-issue.

1. Refuse to confirm stated facts.
2. Complain that links aren't provided to you.
3. When links are provided, ignore them and claim that facts are irrelevant.
4. ????
5. Profit?

Apparently you're just a moron who doesn't want to lose an argument. Thanks for clarifying.


Unless you're starting combat with both arms locked onto the target (in which case, why would you need smartlinks?) the crosshairs would NOT be on the same spot for most of combat. Also, and I'll repeat this one last time:


YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON TWO DISPARATE POINTS AT THE SAME TIME.

Thus, managing the careful aim and control necessary to bring both targeting reticles onto the same point on a target would be extremely difficult. But of course, you don't understand this, because you apparently know nothing about the visual system, and much like ICP before you, you "don't want to talk to scientist", lest the facts of the situation get in the way of your point.

I wasn't asked to confirm any facts. I didn't complain about links. I ignored your link because I didn't ask for it, unless you think 'read wikipedia' counts as presenting *your* facts.

I didn't ask anyone to focus on 2 points at once. I'm not saying it's easy to get those two dots into position. I'm saying it's *easier* to get them into position, than to perform the same task with *no* dots. The task is hard either way, but not equally hard.

Continuously repeating your vague reference to the visual system is not an argument and it is not a fact, bud. I did finally spot one, though ('YOU CANNOT FOCUS ON TWO DISPARATE POINTS AT THE SAME TIME'). Finally. But, as I pointed out, not the right fact in this case. *shrug*. Anyway, science would be you showing me a study demonstrating that people were tested shooting with 1 and 2 guns, at 1 and 2 targets, with 0, 1, and 2 laser dots (or smartlinks, if available). My hypothesis is, still, that 2 guns is harder than 1, 2 targets is much harder than 1, and that more dots is always better. If you have a different hypothesis, then we'll have to wait. But I'm not the one flipping out and calling the other a moron for disagreeing.

I agree with Yerameyahu in that the tech of the smartgun is doing a majority of the math or aiming... unless we're totally wrong on how it works.

I think that's the issue. HOW is the smartgun system helping? What does the guncam, rangefinder, & other goodies actually do that net's the IG +2 bonus? I would like to know. A nice piece of fluff would help clarify matters. Again, as you said, how sensor suites work on a guncam is mind boggling.

All this talk has made me wanna go out again, find an arcade & practice my dual wielding/shooting skills.

The smartgun is doing fuck-all about aiming. It's not moving your weapon in any way, shape, or form. It's simply predicting where the bullet will hit once you pull the trigger based upon available information. That's it. Unlike, for example, a laser sight that's just a straight beam of light. It doesn't take into account range, weather conditions, visibility, or any other data. It's dumb. A smartlink isn't. But it's not a bloody AI, nor does it make your weapon an independent drone of some kind.

I didn't say aiming. It's doing the ballistics to predict where the bullet hits. That's a pretty huge help, and we can thank Mr. Smartlink for giving us *that* much. Exactly as Ol' Scratch said, it's just a smarter laser sight.

A hypothesis is an educated guess. There's no education in your guess. You asked me to provide some kind of links to the facts about how human vision works. I did, and you ignored it. You've countered with....well, jack. Just more excuses. I'm not trying to be mean here, but it's annoying to talk to someone who is so obviously wrong and so incredibly unwilling to think about what they're saying for even one second.

What about using only 1 Weapon with 1 Smartlink instead of 2 ?
(adding +2 Dice to only 1 of the splitted Pools ?)

with a singular Dance
Medicineman

JC: It's kind of amazing how every single thing you say is a disagreement, even extending to facts like 'what was said in the preceding post'.

That's not a great definition of hypothesis, but let's roll with it anyway. The 'education' in my guess is that 0 dots is worse than 1 dot. Lacking any clear data about other dot configurations, I'm going with the proposed trend 'more dots is better' (an oversimplified statement here, but for the sake of brevity…). Perhaps it is wrong, but it's far from 'so obviously wrong'.

I didn't ask for any links of any kind, as I said. I asked for you to be specific. Linking to a wikipedia page isn't really specific.

What excuses?

This 'so incredibly unwilling to think about what they're saying for even one second' business is just a florid insult. There's no reason to assume I'm not thinking about what I'm saying every second, except of course your own incredulity.

--
Yeah, Medicineman, that scenario does *not* work by RAW. The reason behind it is unclear.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis

a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.


Or, as I like to call it, an educated guess. So now that we've established that your expertise lies outside of both science and english, can we move on to your next deflection?

Honestly now. That definition does not match what you 'like to call it', which is exactly what I said. And, if you'll look closely, I moved on in that same sentence, accepting your definition anyway. Ironically, your post is the deflection, because it ignores the majority of mine.

My Post was Kinda like a solution for Miri's "problem"
It might be a workable Houserule if the Players Happiness depends on playing a Akimbo Gunbunny with dual Smartlinks

with a Happy Dance
Medicineman

Medicineman, I dig. That makes sense, because it *doesn't* make tons of sense for the single smartlink/laser to stop helping entirely… and it partially solves the metagame problem that you mention. I'm still shocked at the idea that someone would scrap a whole character over a +2, myself. … Also, I kinda expected a One-Legged Dance or something.

You mean the post that still doesn't address the fact that you were wrong about how human vision works? You've been deflecting for two pages now.

*sigh* What way are you now talking about? It's hard to tell because all you ever say is 'you're wrong about how human vision works'. I don't think I ever took a position on human vision at all.

Your argument makes no sense, given the way that human vision works. As I've repeated over and over again, you cannot apply the necessary level of focus for aiming a goddamn firearm to two separate points in your field of vision at the same time.

And I'm not asking anyone to do so. More precisely, *I'm* not asking them. They're already doing it of their own free will, because they're the ones who want to use the Multiple Target option in the RAW. This happens with or without lasers/smartlinks. I'm not the one who put that rule in the game; if you wanna say that it's impossible, that's a fine house rule. I'm only saying that, given they're already doing this, I don't expect the smartlink to have no effect (the RAW). At minimum, I'd expect it to help on one target (as Medicineman sorta suggested, and I mentioned earlier). (For completeness, I am of course fine with the RAW from a balance POV in this case; I'd also prefer the Multi-Target penalty be *worse*.)

In the case of *single* target, there are not two separate points. There's one point. At no time did I suggest that your eyes are following the little dots as they swing up from the left and right, but *when* they get into your focus, why wouldn't they help? When someone uses 1 gun with a laser sight, they do not follow the dot with their gaze for the entire trip from their feet to the target. They swing the 'goddamn firearm' up into the ballpark, and then correct (as always, apologies for slangy terminology, gun guys!).

I still like the idea of a houseruled super-expensive Deltaware smartlink that allows for the use of 2 smartlinks for dual wielding pistols. Or at least, takes away the penalty for dual wielding.

Eh. I happen to agree with Yerameyahu about smartlink and two-guns-on-one-target.

He is NOT saying the full Smartlink bonus should apply, nor is he saying your ability to aim would be just as good. In both cases there should be some negative effect.

But aiming two-guns-on-one-target WITH smartlink should be somewhat easier than aiming two-guns-on-one-target WITHOUT Smartlink. That was his point.

I find that opinion perfectly reasonable. It is NOT silly to suggest that 'something' might be better than 'nothing'.

Hm. Maybe add the ability to use the Smartlink in dual-wielding to the Mark 74 Smartlink from WAR. At least then it'd actually have some purpose, instead of supposedly being 'special' since it can do friend-or-foe identification that normal smartlinks can't... oh wait, yes they can.

The bit about "it's not dots it's crosshairs" made me laugh, though. Mostly because I can't see why that distinction matters. Even today you can have as your sighting reticule dots, crosshairs, circles, hell, even smiley faces. I'm sure by 2070 they might have a few other options. None of which really matter to the discussion at hand. Two aim points are two aim points, regardless of their form.



-k

That's always cool, Saint Hallow. If I may, though: the grade typically doesn't affect the effect. A Deltaware Synaptic Booster is the same as a Basic one. I'm assuming that you just mean that it's a pre-market prototype kind of thing, though? Honestly, I'd consider this tame enough to be a moderately-priced 'normal' item, myself. Niche market.

@Yerameyahu-
Thanks for answering my question.

I have actually done that a couple of times, the result weren't that good, but i'm one hundred percent sure that they would have been even worse if the game didn't have those reticules on the screen.
Witch ofcource has always been the point of my comment, along with correcting Jonathan C:s misconception about smartguns being fired thought the gun cam as SOP.

Not all of those games have reticles on screen; you can still adjust your aim based on where the bullet impacts are. Seeing as you aren't taking the time to properly aim either way when you're double-gunning, the reticle would have been irrelevant.

For all of you arguing that the human mind and body is not capable of following the two separate (or apparently single target with both guns trained on it) targets. The Adept in question was Ambidextrous and had Multi-tasking. So yes, this particular character was in fact able to follow two different targets that were in line of sight without any issue and when his brain told his left arm to do something there was no chance of crossed wires and his right arm starting then stopping and the left arm doing as it was told. Also note, this is an AWAKENED character and a highly skilled (had rank 5 Pistols, specialization and two ranks of Adept power Improved Ability Pistols) one at that in his chosen weapon, he was not a mundane normal unaugmented character.

Um, JonathanC, doesn't that mean that the impacts you're using are just cruddy reticules? And having to miss several times seems like the definition of "i'm one hundred percent sure that they would have been even worse if the game didn't have those reticules on the screen."

While that's not at all what that power is for, Miri, yes, being magic-awesome clearly is different. Still, this issue applies to everyone. It might be a good idea to add a house rule edit for that power though: "Unlike mere mortals, adepts with this power *can* do X."

Two things:

1. Even on a single target, you'd still be visually aiming two separate points.
2. Multi-tasking allows your mind to do two things at once, yes. That solves half of the problem. The other half of the problem relates to (god I'm tired of repeating this) the nature of human eyesight. Within your entire field of vision, there is only a tiny part of it that you have full visual acuity in. It's called the Foveal. That's why everyone who has tried to dual-wield in a light gun game had such bad luck; you weren't actually aiming two guns at once; you were switching between the two, making minor adjustments. And your limited success was due more to the fact that enemies in light gun games are designed to be shot, rather than the existence of a reticle.

Just when I thought you couldn't possibly say anything dumber, you prove me wrong. If bullet impacts count as reticles, then you should always be getting smartgun bonuses, whether you have a smartgun or not.



How exactly does failing in the same way that you would without reticles prove that the reticles provide a significant bonus?

When was the last time you looked at an eye chart from the medical diagnosis distance? When you read line 1 does line 2 and below suddenly disappear? I would wager it does not, and I would wager that unless your target is less then point blank range (one to two arms length) that the focal point of your Foveal will in fact encompass both smartgun dots. With enough physical training and muscle memory you can train yourself to point both guns at one point.

Always so insulting. I thought it was obvious, but I was talking (as were you) about bullet impacts *on screen in the arcade game*. If you're judging your aim by the colorful 'splash' images on the screen, that's like a cruddy version of the colorful 'reticule' images on the screen. (I thought it went without saying, but reality offers no such 'impact' cues, though you can use tracers with automatics… shockingly, they provide a similar bonus.)

Mäx's statement is that it would be worse, which is the opposite of "failing in the same way". Maybe he's wrong, but that's what he said.

Nope.
Also, I'm curious about the difference in focus between an arcade game (flat screen, a few feet away) and the reality (3D world, at least yards away). (Exactly, Miri.)

When was the last time you tried to read both lines on the eye chart at the same time?

I don't need to. I just have to have the (single) target in view and both smartgun dots in a hand sized grouping on the targets chest. Fine focus is not needed for this, just enough information for the brain to know where the target is and where both dots are, if they are next to each other and center of mass then excellent. Pull the triggers.

Nope what? What is this nope based on? What is your argument for nope? I'm willing to let this go and just write you off, since you haven't bothered to make any kind of logical point in 4 pages.

I've addressed that exact point 3 times. You are not being asked to focus on two separate points at once (in the single-target scenario); you are focusing on one target the whole time. (Exactly *again*, Miri. )

And in the multi-target scenario, you were *already* trying to do so with or without the smartlinks/lasers, so it's hardly their fault. They can't hurt you.

The "two points" in question aren't the targets, they're the "points" that you are aiming at. Your eyes will naturally swap from one point to the other while you're aiming. This is distracting enough to make playing a light gun game (in which the targets are barely shooting at you and are standing there waiting to be shot) extremely difficult; in an actual combat situation you'd be killed trying this idiocy.

Well two things. It is a good thing I am not in fact doing this in real life or a combat situation and this is in fact also a game.

I would also appreciate it if you would lay off the 'idiots' and 'are you stupids'. It makes your tone of voice and posts feel very combative.

Your area of acute vision is indeed limited to a "tiny part" of about 15 degrees.

Funny thing. When you're aiming two Smartguns at the same target, the targeting dots are BOTH GOING TO BE IN THAT TINY PART.

And it is in fact possible to hold a discussion without resorting to insults and personal attacks. As a point, they usually WEAKEN your argument, not make it stronger, because now instead of focusing on the subject people start focusing on the insults. If nothing else, many folks are likely to start wondering if the insulting party is perhaps a juvenile, and thus assign less importance to what they say as a result. No, it's not a rational reaction, but it is an inevitable one.



-k

We're tired of you repeating it, too. You're not looking at (focusing on) the dots. You're looking at the target. Dots are bright, salient, and crucially don't need to be focused on.

Actually, the funny thing is that not even Multiple Targets requires dual *simultaneous* focus; there's no facing in SR, and no requirement that the two targets not be, say, directly to your right and left. Very John Woo, which is presumably where the penalty comes from (though, again, I'd kinda like it bigger). Anyway, the argument is the same: if you're firing two guns straight left and straight right, I bet smartlink/laser dots help.

I want you to try something. Go hunting, and just stare at some deer. Don't bother paying attention to where you want to shoot them, just stare at the deer, pull the trigger, and hope for the best. Let me know how that works out for you.

Does my gun have a laser pointer since we don't have the tech for smartgun links? Cause I can assure you, if I am staring at that deer then I can also see the laser point skittering all around on its body and so I have a pretty good idea of where the round is going to land.