NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 311 Replies
  • 7546 Views

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 548
« Reply #90 on: (10:42:59/07-12-19) »
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesn´t count towards this limit".

That way, a) you don´t have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly don´t count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) there´s an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3209
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #91 on: (10:49:12/07-12-19) »
yeah im sorry Banshee and Fastjack but this is a critical flaw of the edge advantage system in 6e, it does not model actions / situations in anything approaching a reasonable way.

In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

This should force a change in plan to something more reasonable.

This is a core conceit of almost all missions in shadowrun ("shit, plan A is hosed because we can't use approach X because of condition Y so instead we go to plan B").

Now you can toss that all out the window as nothing in 6e reflects actual reality of the combat space's conditions.

It's all just relative, and in being so loses all connection to what would happen with a group of combatants in a real world scenario.

When you lose that connection you can no longer plan effectively because every combat is the equivalent of a magical pony that no one understand where it came from or how it works.

I can totally see the situation right now:

GM: your recon of the meet shows a huge blizzard starting to cover the area, rendering all long range vision and targeting useless.
Sniper: hang on, that blizzard is natural right?
GM: yes
Sniper: well then it affects us and the opposition and was not caused by them correct?
GM: yes
Sniper: then it doesn't affect me! no edge is generated as it wasn't caused by either us or the opposition and so therefore i can snipe completely unaffected by the blizzard!
GM: ....

Sorry chaps but 6e's edge is a total disconnection from the world in which the game happens.
It replaces the entire reality of a GM generated playspace with relative advantage that renders it mostly irrelevant.

That's really sad as there were so many ways to build this system and make it simpler without trashing the core component of having the game reflect reality enough to make it feel meaningful and have things react rationally.

This is *far* down the rabbithole.


Marcus

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 2728
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #92 on: (10:52:35/07-12-19) »
I do think it's worth taking 1 sec to note this. Given the choice between forcing your opponent to re-roll a success vs you re-rolling a failure. The only worth while option there is forcing them to re-roll a success. You have 67% chance of them failing the re-roll vs 67% you wasted a point of edge on a re-roll. Now if conversion of a 4 to a 5 is an available choice for one edge that's a better then both those others, as you're looking at 100% chance of getting a success there.

So the whole equal odds canceling is not good, but it's clearly just isn't going to change these folks minds. To me the issue is under the Edge system, if your prep a position, and then enemy moves in. All you're going to get out of is a chance at a point of edge. When I say a chance what i mean is given how edge generation is capped, if you were already going to get 2 edge, then preparation and tactics will likely have no meaning. That's what I don't like. Building logic in 6e will dictate your character build to get 2 edge in any opposed roll scenario.  Even if you don't really want to build that way, it seems like you won't have a choice. If you're using the best weapon and armor possible given availability and resources, odds are that's one edge then it's a question of ware. So once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge.

And while the play test generated edge in each opposed roll, that won't hold in the live version.  Making the system still less useful.

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 526
« Reply #93 on: (11:13:18/07-12-19) »
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesn´t count towards this limit".

That way, a) you don´t have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly don´t count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) there´s an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...

100% agree .. we have submitted changes to the Powers in Charge, so we shall see what his final decision will be. For what's worth regardless of what gets passed down my home game will be running based on edge gain is based on per action and not per round
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2455
« Reply #94 on: (11:14:48/07-12-19) »
yes, but that is exactly what I am talking about all you did was shift the pools from 15 and 8 to 9 and 2 ... still has the same probability curve (a 7 dice difference in dice pools) it's just shifted to the left

I'm sorry, but that's wrong.  Iron Serpent Prince is correct. 

Sammie Samurai, 18 dice to shoot stuff, 13 dice for defense tests vs 5 PR 2ish Mooks with 10 Dice of Shooting and 8 dice Defense tests.  10 Dice vs 13 Dice is ... what about a 15% chance to hit?  18 Dice vs 8 is in the 90's I think.  -7 for Thermographic Smoke drops the Mooks to 3 Dice to hit vs Sammie's 13 Defense dice which is less than 1%.  And Sammie would be down to 11 dice vs 8 which is 60ish% chance to hit, with a 30ish% chance of bumping up one and a rapidly diminishing chance of multiple increases. 

That dramatically favors Sammie the Samurai, it doesn't just "...shift it to the left..."  If nothing changes Sammie Samurai could burn down Mooks for as long as the Ammo lasts. 

To say a universal penalty is a statistical wash for opposed tests is categorically wrong.  It's not how Game Theory works, its not how Probability works. 

I understand that White Board game theory isn't actual play, but to say that mathematically universal penalties don't change the outcome is incorrect.  Universal penalties favor higher dice pools in opposed tests, the larger the differential in opposed dice pools the more favored the outcome.  True story.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3209
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #95 on: (11:14:55/07-12-19) »
...once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge...

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.

we've exposed all the game breaking inanity just in an internet thread of people talking about the game.

I would have to assume the playtesting was restricted to small number of people who have one particular playstyle that resulted in an echo chamber of approval.
I know that our table would have immediately uncovered the blizzard scenario and immediately stopped and said "thanks but this is so nuts this game doesn't work, back to the drawing board."

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #96 on: (11:20:30/07-12-19) »
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

That’s what I plan to do too. QSR doesn’t expressly is this is a thing, but it is somewhat implied to be able to be a thing from how I read it.

Banshee

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 526
« Reply #97 on: (11:26:06/07-12-19) »
yeah im sorry Banshee and Fastjack but this is a critical flaw of the edge advantage system in 6e, it does not model actions / situations in anything approaching a reasonable way.

In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

This should force a change in plan to something more reasonable.

This is a core conceit of almost all missions in shadowrun ("shit, plan A is hosed because we can't use approach X because of condition Y so instead we go to plan B").

Now you can toss that all out the window as nothing in 6e reflects actual reality of the combat space's conditions.

It's all just relative, and in being so loses all connection to what would happen with a group of combatants in a real world scenario.

When you lose that connection you can no longer plan effectively because every combat is the equivalent of a magical pony that no one understand where it came from or how it works.

I can totally see the situation right now:

GM: your recon of the meet shows a huge blizzard starting to cover the area, rendering all long range vision and targeting useless.
Sniper: hang on, that blizzard is natural right?
GM: yes
Sniper: well then it affects us and the opposition and was not caused by them correct?
GM: yes
Sniper: then it doesn't affect me! no edge is generated as it wasn't caused by either us or the opposition and so therefore i can snipe completely unaffected by the blizzard!
GM: ....

Sorry chaps but 6e's edge is a total disconnection from the world in which the game happens.
It replaces the entire reality of a GM generated playspace with relative advantage that renders it mostly irrelevant.

That's really sad as there were so many ways to build this system and make it simpler without trashing the core component of having the game reflect reality enough to make it feel meaningful and have things react rationally.

This is *far* down the rabbithole.

that's just it though, are they both effected the same offensively yes, can hey both see just fine and etc yes ... but you are all glossing over some of the obvious stuff ... does the attacker have any way of mitigating the high winds? Is the defender effected by the winds? In this case I would assume both answers are no ... means the environmental advantage goes to the defender and he gets an edge point (same would apply when roles are reversed so you effectively just trade edge back and forth unless you change it up). It's all about who has the "tactical" advantage based on the action being taken. The fact that both attackers do not have their dice pool reduced does not statistically matter in the exchange, but how you make use of the situation to your advantage does.

also, while I do agree that the new edge system takes a lot of the punch out of the impact the previous modifiers provided but the the tactical choices are still there. So, yes while it is not nearly as in depth as a tactical simulation as it used to be it is still very viable to make effective use of tactics ... just in a different way and with different results.
Robert "Banshee" Volbrecht
Freelancer & FAQ Committee member
Former RPG Lead Agent
Catalyst Demo Team

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2384
« Reply #98 on: (11:31:34/07-12-19) »
By far the biggest problem with the Edge mechanic is that 2 Edge Cap per round. However, that problem could be solved by adding just one sentence right behind the statement that Edge gain in combat is limited to 2 Edge per round:

"Edge that is spend right on the test/action where you earned it doesn´t count towards this limit".

That way, a) you don´t have that ridiculous culling effect where all the situational advantages, attack & defense ratings and edge-generating augmentations and perks suddenly don´t count anymore because you already hit the ceiling an b) there´s an incentive to use Edge on the test where you actually earned it instead of banking it, which is more fitting from a more simulationist POV.

Maybe the Hardy boys (and girls, of course) are smart enough to listen to community feedback and the errata team this time and provide an official statement - or even  a "fix" - regarding this  ::) If not, at least I already know what my most important houserule will be...

100% agree .. we have submitted changes to the Powers in Charge, so we shall see what his final decision will be. For what's worth regardless of what gets passed down my home game will be running based on edge gain is based on per action and not per round

Even 2 per action is too big of a limit if it’s supposed to reflect actual differences in advantage. Heck one modifier should have the possibility for more than 2. Just under lighting poor lighting vs complete darkness should be a huge difference.

If it was you can only hold a net 2 per turn I’d see that as fine. But if I have Thermo and you are blind firing I should score like 4 edge just for that each of my actions. If this is the core system to reflect advantage or difficulty in combat.

If you had in additional thresholds on top of the opposed test the core edge works as it’s a supplement to a deeper system.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3209
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #99 on: (11:33:44/07-12-19) »
why would the defender not be affected by the blizzard?
of course they are.

you could make similar scenarios all day because that's how the real world works (combatants on a rough ocean where the boats are tipping violently, cars in traffic weaving erratically, etc).

when you reduce the world to relative advantage all of that gets removed, effectively being irrelevant because both sides are equally affected.

in 6e the outcome is, nothing changes.
your shot is just as likely to succeed as if you were lying prone in the desert with a clear sky.

the actual real world effect should instead be "damn your almost certainly going to miss OR geeze only a superhuman amazeballs person has a chance of hitting".

that's a core conceit of having a game world respond realistically to PCs actions.

now that's gone, and replaced with...ugh.

« Reply #100 on: (11:37:06/07-12-19) »
Personally I'd just up the base threshold of everyone's checks, which is how Infinity does opposed tests with difficulty, but I don't know if SR6 explicitly supports that.

not any different than 5E in that regard ... in an opposed roll your "threshold" is set by your opponents roll, unopposed rolls have a threshold

No, I mean specifically in Infinity both apply to opposed rolls: Each rolls against a difficulty and then the one with the most bonus momentum (read net hits) against their difficulty is the one that wins the opposed.

So it'd be like, Stat + Attribute [3] vs Stat + Attribute [1] for something like the attacker trying to take a shot in high winds. So even if both roll 4 hits the defender still wins by 3 because the threshold eats 3 of the attacker's hits.

But also like, in more narrative systems you can just say you can't shoot in a hurricane but that's kind of screwed by shadowrun's scale being everything from a rent a cop with a shitty gun to a guy whose whole body might as well be additional parts for his sniper rifle.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #101 on: (11:44:32/07-12-19) »
In the blizzard scenario it's crystal clear no one has any business being a sniper as its totally combat ineffective.

You don’t have to have dice pool penalties to do this. As GM you tell your player that the blizzard is strong enough he simply can’t make a shot. End of story.

quote]

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.

we've exposed all the game breaking inanity just in an internet thread of people talking about the game.

I’m reminded of the old adage ‘dynamite on paper’. Some things look awesome till rubber meets the road, other things look like garbo till they hit the wild. As yet only the playtesters have done games with the full rules, all the rest of us won’t actually know for sure until we’ve rolled a few pounds of dice. That applies as well to the few amongst us who’ve read the full rules but haven’t run sessions with them.

Not liking what your seeing and raising concerns is one thing. Saying it’s inane and broken and they all should have known better but they must have been too busy echoing each other is another thing entirely.

Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 548
« Reply #102 on: (11:45:06/07-12-19) »
...once you're at 2 there is zero point in doing anything else for tactical advantage. You can of course show up in a bikini and packing plastic spork as your weapon of choice with the ware and then act tactically hopefully to get that 2nd edge...

yeah i really can't fathom how this made it through playtesting.


Well, from what I heard... It didnt´t  :P

Apparently, what was actually playtested was 2 per turn (or even per action?), which makes a huge difference considering that you can get Edge because of your opponent´s actions as well. Hitting the limit in your own turn - that´s not going to happen too often, agreed. But hitting the limit over the course of a whole combat turn, that´s going to happen a lot, especially with "tanky" characters. And everytime you hit that limit and lose a point of Edge you would normally get, a simulationist kitten gets strangled. 

I suspect that this actually might be an errata question. Messing up turn and round is even a somewhat understandable mistake, especally when compared to other CGL blunders  ::)   
« Last Edit: (11:48:20/07-12-19) by Finstersang »

« Reply #103 on: (11:46:37/07-12-19) »
Yeah the round/turn thing has to be a mistake.

Because the whole system goes from slightly weird to bizzaro town the instant it's not pretty quick to top up and make use of your edge.

Moonshine Fox

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
  • Proudly serving our dragon overlords
« Reply #104 on: (11:47:38/07-12-19) »
 And as for “real world combat“, what are your house rules to represent bleed out, or for shock. A lot of deaths from gunshots are the result of blood loss, which is why some people will die into a single 32, and others will take a full clip of 45 (or a railroad spike through the brain, weird but true story) and be OK.