NEWS

SMGs vs MPs (or, is full auto worth it)

  • 102 Replies
  • 19104 Views

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5667
« Reply #60 on: <11-10-13/1315:11> »
you still only hit the target with 11P with a base accuracy that limit him to 5 hits.

you can use an ares desert strike with a base accuracy that limit you to 7 hits that deal 13P (the 5 extra dodge dice compared to FA from alpha will still average [slightly] more than 11P, the higher base accuracy even more so).

a target being unaware that he is being attacked does not get to use his dodge pool at all anyway, you have twice as many IPs worth of ammo per clip compared to the alpha, the high base damage code will let you deal physical damage on high armored targets when they will deal stun if you used alpha the better range give you dice bonus advantage at 26-50m as well as anything beyond 151m.

alpha being better at killing high dodge targets (adepts) while desert strike is better at killing high armored targets (cyborgs).


...but not really a huge difference between the two if you ask me. shrug.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #61 on: <11-10-13/1755:17> »
The Accuracy of a Ares Alpha is 7 with smartlink. Chances you roll >7 hits are rather small even with higher dicepools so leaving that out for now. That puts the Alpha at 2.7 damage less, vs 5 dodge dice which at the least would take off 1.7 damage, so the Alpha is at 1 damage less in the scenario where both hit. We're talking firefights, which means we're not talking unaware enemies and if they were for some reason they'd likely go down from both weapons. The Alpha can fire 7 Full Auto Simple Action bursts in a single clip and it's only 1 Simple + 1 Free, or 2 Simple, Actions to reload. If we assume both weapons are loaded with APDS, we're talking Physical Damage on anyone at 18 armor or less with a single nethit, with regular rounds that's 14 which equals an Armor Jacket + Helmet. AJ+Helmet+OS4 still is only 18 armor.

So to summarize:
- The Desert Strike is much more expensive than the Ares Alpha.
- Ares Alpha is at 1 damage less when both hit, but that's not enough to properly calculate.
- Enemies awareness is mostly irrelevant so the dodge dice are a must in the comparison.
- 7 IPs of combat without any reloading issues generally would round up the fight.
- Even if a gunfight takes longer than 7 bursts, reloading a clip-weapon isn't a problem at all.
- Accuracy rarely matters, even when ignoring Taking Aim. But at high dicepools, it would, so we'll take a high dicepool into account below.

So what primarily stands is the 2 2/3 damage more vs the -5 defense dice. Let's assume an 18-dice attacker and a 12-dice + 15-dice defender.

18v12: 71.85% hitting chance, average 3.215 net hits on a hit.
18v7: 91.28% hitting chance, average 4.075 net hits on a hit.
So that's 16.215/-8 * 71.85% vs 15.075/-6 * 91.28%. Let's do a very rough estimate and convert the AP to damage while ignoring excess soak situations. Excess Soak situations would end up decreasing the average damage of the desert strike, so ignoring them here should be fine (we probably end up overestimating the damage from the desert strike a tiny bit like this). So we got 18.882 * 71.85% vs 17.075 * 91.28%, 13.567 vs 15.586 before soak. In other words, the Ares Alpha ends up 2 damage higher on average before soak. Note that we ignored Accuracy in these equations, a more detailed test would skew the results away from the desert strike a tiny tad for excess soak involvement, while skewing it a decent bit towards it due to Accuracy. The Desert Strike would gain approximately 1/3 hit on average from this, so clearly a more detailed test is required.

So let's try again, assuming both weapons use a Smartgun and the Attacker has 18 dice vs 12 dice for the defender. We're ignoring Soak for now, which means the damage difference leans towards the Alpha a tiny bit. This is because applying Soak requires more than AnyDice can easily handle, since it means we need to make sure only non-zero values end up getting boosted by base damage, then soaked. So this would require using a program to either calculate or approximate.

output [highest of 0 and [lowest of 9 and 18d{0,0,1}]-12d{0,0,1}]
output [highest of 0 and [lowest of 7 and 18d{0,0,1}]-7d{0,0,1}]

We now get 71.83% vs 91.27% as hitting chances, so those didn't change much, but average nethits did. 3.132 vs 3.638 net hits on a hit. So the Alpha ended up turning in more average damage on a hit. Let's approximate by adding AP and base damage again. The Desert Strike gets 15.667 added for a total of 18.799 on a hit, 13.503 average damage. The Alpha will face a bigger loss: +13 = 16.638 on a hit, 15.186 average damage. So despite the 2 2/3 damage advantage for the Desert Strike, versus a 12-dice defender the Ares Alpha does > 1 2/3 more damage.

As for 18 dice vs 15 dice: 57.15%*(15.667+2.765)=10.534, 80.34%*(13+3.037)=12.884, Alpha does > 2 1/3 more damage than the Desert Strike. So with a highly augmented + attributed enemy, the Alpha is even better.

So if Recoil never accumulates if you fire Simple Bursts, the Ares Alpha outdoes the more expensive Ares Desert Strike in damage. This also proves that on the first shot, the Automatic is by far superior. However, Accumulative Recoil plays a big part to balance this difference out. With Accumulative Recoil, the Longarms user has a fair chance at inflicting equal damage against skilled opponents in the long run, even if they lose out on the first shot(s).
« Last Edit: <11-10-13/1908:25> by Michael Chandra »
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #62 on: <11-10-13/1847:00> »
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...

In other words, Full Auto is a more viable combat strategy in-game, because it simply is more suited to the conditions.

Of course, if you're regularly engaging your enemies at more than 1000m, disregard the above...

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #63 on: <11-10-13/1855:17> »
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...
The fact that 4 of the 5 sniper rifles don't suffer any penalties in running firefights seems to imply otherwise.

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #64 on: <11-10-13/1901:17> »
I wasn't talking stats...

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #65 on: <11-10-13/1908:02> »
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...
I'm not the one who brought up using a Sniper Rifle, rather than a Sport Rifle or a Shotgun, in an ongoing firefight. So blame Xenon for that one. But he brought them up with good reason: Sniper Rifles are the biggest-damage Longarm there are, are the easiest to reload and carry the most ammo of all longarms with the Enfield drum as exception. Arguing from the best Longarm's perspective helps more with the number debate than arguing from the ones that have a comparable price to the Alpha.

If even Sniper Rifles are inferior when you use this recoil version, and the argument is that we shouldn't even look at them in the first place, then clearly with no-accumulative-simple-recoil Longarms are completely inferior to Automatics. If, on the other hand, recoil accumulates until you spend a significant time not firing, then the Longarms skill can still be useful in something other than a sniping situation, with the tradeoff of less certain damage initially vs longer firing at fair chances. At that point, it's a tactical choice rather than a metagaming one.

And yes, Automatics are still the more attractive option even with accumulative recoil. You can fire multiple bursts and hit more reliably, even if the Longarm packs a bigger punch you end up doing more DPS because you hit much more often against any competent enemy. Once we start getting into high-dodge opponents, even the Longarms user has to use an Enfield's bursts to have a fair hitting chance and the Alpha then lasts a short burst longer before recoil starts screwing you over. So Automatics are still the more attractive choice even if recoil isn't practically SR4.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #66 on: <11-10-13/1909:36> »
I wasn't talking stats...
And I was fully aware of that. I simply disagree. You're only "doing something wrong" if you use a Forbidden sniper rifle in a running firefight in a public area, but even in a situation like that, I see no real issue with using a hunting rifle, rather than a shotgun or assault rifle. In fact, give your character a tweed jacket and a monocle, and using their Remington 950 to take out an uncivilized hoodlum harassing him will only make him look badass.

RHat

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6317
« Reply #67 on: <11-10-13/2043:05> »
Automatics, in my opinion, should be the more attractive option. If you're using a sniper rifle in running gun fights, you're doing it wrong...

So, the EBR, which represents a designated marksman's rifle very effectively, isn't meant for running firefights?
"Speech"
Thoughts
Matrix <<Text>> "Speech"
Spirits and Sprites

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #68 on: <11-11-13/0858:20> »
RHat, sure, if your characters are in a warzone...

How often do your runners get to play with assault cannons, grenades, fully automatic machine guns, and missile launchers. Sniper rifles, sports rifles, and yes, the EBR, are the weapons of soldiers. If your characters regularly get to carry this kind of firepower, then by all means have at it; otherwise, to my mind these are specialized weapons only used in very specific circumstances.

An AR carbine or a shotgun, on the other hand, is more concealable, packs an equal punch, and is more suited for the normally short range (i.e. less than 300 meters) that shadowrunners are forced to operate at most of the time.

I'm not arguing stats or rules, I'm arguing story. Make of that what you will.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #69 on: <11-11-13/0946:00> »
By the way, let's take a look at the EBR. I did some math from the top of my head and think that if the hitting differerence is below 7%, they're about equal.

Let's assume we have a Crockett EBR, which automatically has 3+ RC if we include natural RC. Under no-accumulative-from-simple-attacks this is enough. Let's assume the Alpha wielder has 2 natural RC and has equipped it with a shockpad, furthermore both weapons are silenced and the EBR has a Smart Gun. So we lose 1 die with a Full Auto Simple Burst with the Ares Alpha. This puts us at 12/-7 & 18vs10 on one hand, and 11/-6 & 17vs7 on the other. So let's repeat the math.

EBR: 80.70% hitting chance, 3,309 average nethits on a hit, 14.333 base damage so 0.8070*17,642=14,237 DPS.
Alpha: 89.19% hitting chance, 3.487 average nethits on a hit, 13 base damage so 0.8919*16.487=14,705 DPS.

So the Ares Alpha outbeats the EBR by near-half a point of damage on the first burst. Note that this assumes a silencer on the Alpha so no full recoil-compensation, and that the EBR has a higher damage per hit, from which part will be lost due to excess soak. So in truth the difference may very well be more significant, it'd require more detailed math (or random experimenting) to get a better difference. Of course a Raiden can be equipped with sound suppressor and gas vent for full compensation in this case. We haven't tried a 15-dice opponent yet, where the Alpha would get even further ahead.

I haven't checked MP vs P yet, would have to do that another time. But I still think Longarms is shafted too much under no-recoil-accumulation-from-simple-attacks.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #70 on: <11-11-13/0954:45> »
An AR carbine or a shotgun, on the other hand, is more concealable, packs an equal punch, and is more suited for the normally short range (i.e. less than 300 meters) that shadowrunners are forced to operate at most of the time.
Sport rifles have the same Concealability as assault rifles and shotguns. Meanwhile, shotguns only go up to 150 meters, and 151-350 is Long range for assault rifles, while 51-350 is Medium range for sport&sniper rifles. So the 151-300 meters zone disqualifies shotguns and gives a -3 with assault rifles instead of the -1 a sport rifle gives you.
« Last Edit: <11-11-13/0957:04> by ZeConster »

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #71 on: <11-11-13/0954:52> »
And why is that a bad thing? Longarms and Automatics have different capabilities, and Automatics SHOULD excel at close to medium range.

There's a reason the majority of soldiers don't carry sniper rifles, and snipers are similarly called force multipliers for a reason.

Not all things have to be equal. You're not comparing pistols to machine pistols to submachine guns to machine guns; they all have different purposes, and so stats are not everything.

ZeConster Fair enough. The other two arguments still apply, and you'll notice that no one of the above argued for sports rifles, but instead focused on sniper rifles...

As for range, that was exactly my point. Military snipers typically engage the enemy at 300 meters or more; shadowrunners will not generally operate at this range, and so the "less than 300 meters" statement was made from a merely contextual point of view, and once again, I'm not arguing based on stats or rules, but rather what is sensible for a runner to carry.

To my mind, this is pretty clear; an AR (or smaller) sized weapon should be the heaviest weapon a runner carries, unless he is operating in Z security zones. And in most cases, even an AR will stand out, making this whole argument moot.

The topic has obviously drifted from the original posters question, which dealt with Machine Pistols and SMGs, and that's cool too. I just think comparing apples to oranges (or sniper rifles and assault rifles, in this case) makes very little sense.
« Last Edit: <11-11-13/1001:25> by martinchaen »

ZeConster

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2557
« Reply #72 on: <11-11-13/0957:43> »
ZeConster Fair enough. The other two arguments still apply, and you'll notice that no one of the above argued for sports rifles, but instead focused on sniper rifles...
But you did.

Michael Chandra

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 9481
  • Question-slicing ninja
« Reply #73 on: <11-11-13/0959:01> »
I argued Sport Rifles before people brought up Shotguns and Sniper Rifles. I also made clear why I focused on that debate.
How am I not part of the forum?? O_O I am both active and angry!

martinchaen

  • *
  • Guest
« Reply #74 on: <11-11-13/1002:55> »
ZeConster It was an offhand mention including the other two kinds of longarms. It was not meant to single out sports rifles.