QUOTE (Wired_SR_AEGIS @ Jun 13 2013, 06:57 PM)

There are some fundamental misunderstandings of dice littering this subject.
I think that's going to be a major hurdle to appreciating limits.
For instance: Having a lower limit than another person in no way eliminates your ability to beat them in a contested roll. Just like having less dice than someone, in no way, eliminated your ability to beat someone in a contested roll.
Additionally, having a larger dice pool with an infinite sample size dominates a smaller dice pool without limits. In the same way, having an equal dice pool, and disparate limits is likewise dominating in infinite sample sizes. There's no fundamental change here. The core result is a function of probability. Same as its always been.
There's a bit of a mathematical shell game going on, and if sounds like some of the above commentary isn't even looking at the table, let alone the shells, let alone trying to figure out which shell will win you a big kewpie doll.
-Wired_SR_AEGIS
What will really matter is the relationship of one person's dice pool to the other person's cap. That is, the percentage of rolls that will 'bully' the other person into a 0% chance of success.
The example of the DV7 Acc5 gun versus the DV5 Acc7 gun is an example of damage-balancing, but guns don't shoot each other. You really have to compare it against the dodge roll (R + I, Physical). If Dodgy McDodgerson rolls his 12 dice or however, how often is he likely to meet or exceed the hit cap of the gun, making the act of shooting moot. Or vice versa, where someone can roll to hit, and if he surpasses the other guy's physical limit for dodging, the guy may as well not roll anything.