NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 311 Replies
  • 6738 Views

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 142
« Reply #180 on: (18:04:20/07-12-19) »
Dezmont, I daresay you're mistaking plebean forum chatter as CGL communication.

The marketing is those updates like the one this thread is discussing.  Everyhing you've seen in this thread is fandom discussion. Even the statements by those posters bound by NDAs.

I am aware! I have been under NDA with Catalyst before, I 100% get that people often confuse you with an official company rep.

I mean I read those. I am saying it wasn't good. It definitely is a step waaaay in the right direction for Cata, definitely a vast improvement, but there is a ways to go. It is a solid B- in terms of being a product teaser, maybe a B, but it has some flaws if I were to grade it (and I do, actually for the record if I may flex for a bit, assist in grading articles like this now that I work part time teaching at a vocational highschool while I get my masters in communications theory with a concentration in applied social media, so I kinda want to stress I at the very least am crazy in debt to own a document saying I know what I am talking about here, even if you want to claim I actually don't!).

But for example, the article decided to make the lead answer to the question of 'What makes SR6 combat awesome' with 'First and foremost were the complexity of rolls being made' and 'we looked to stripping it down.' It builds up to the fact it is going to say more about combat... but then every paragraph is how much more streamlined things are! The conclusion is strong, but, again, focused purely on simplification. Every single paragraph and new concept introduced loops back around to simplification, and fails to talk about how it actually plays or feels.

There is one positive anecdote, and to be fair it is really strong.

"In the end, we came up with a system that kept my group’s hacker and mage happily sitting at the table and waiting for their next turn instead of whipping out phones or checking out or going to pick up pizza, while also making the street sam feel like she still ruled combat in the shadows."

This is great. It is strong, it claims to solve to an old problem SR has, this is definitely something that will get people to notice a major improvement if its true. But... you will notice... its not talking about how combat is specifically good. It talks about removing a problem, and alludes to something good unsupported by the work. In fact, it is the only reference to a combat PC type in the entire release. If the article also included some information on how it feels to be a combat PC in this system (it contains none, the entire article is purely about how edge makes things more simple) this would be the thing that puts people over the moon and gives it an A+ over all. As is though, it is the thing I would circle on the paper and write 'elaborate?' on in red pen. They managed to point out that being a mage or decker in a fight feels less draggy in the article, but didn't talk about the converse 'but samurai still feel really good' line, which is bad because Mages and Deckers got a lot of love in other articles already and this is nominally about The Street Sam's entire gimmick. It is easy to see why people are talking about the dawn of Troll Soaktank mages replacing sams now, even if that won't actually end up being true! We haven't heard anything about why samurai will be rockin, but we heard a lot about mages to make people either over-evaluate their capabilities in a way that makes them have negative perception of the product, or accurately clock that they will be way too good this edition. Regardless of what is true, you don't want people thinking that!

This article needed a paragraph or two to build up to that last sentence. Like a few sentences mentioning that having a high attack and defense rating makes you feel really strong in combat or is really helpful because of edge generation would help so much, but they literally did the opposite and in paragraph 11 said that edge is no longer as precious as it used to be!

Also they have some single line paragraphs. Looks good talking casually about something, which is the tone they went for here.

But sometimes they are separated out for no reason when they aren't used to bridge two paragraphs and are really about the one above.

I can't stress enough how much I thoroughly applaud CGL for these articles, how they actually are really useful and do help manage expectations and mellow the discourse. I suspect things would be a LOT worse without em. But this article really... doesn't address many of the concerns being raised, and they were raised as far back as the Shadowcasters preview. So it isn't like "Cata are such idiots" or "The game is going to suck hard" but there is a lot of validity in the concerns and perceptions being formed because Cata either doesn't have a response (AKA it IS actually going to suck and they don't want to lie), they don't know how to respond, feel uncomfortable responding because the internet sucks and is good at sustaining infinite negativity (which is why I have kinda avoided talking about 6e with people as much as possible because I found getting stuck in those cycles unhhealthy), or are just inexperienced when it comes to this sorta thing (the most likely actual answer). Better does not mean good, but better should be applauded as long as Cata continues to seek better, which I think it hopefully is.

But to be clear, when a company has a PR crisis, especially at a product launch, traditional wisdom is to always internalize the failure and view it as 'your own fault.' Trying to blame your customer base for not liking you irrationally is sorta appealing on a human level but doing so is basically admitting you have no control over your company's perceptions or success, so absolving yourself of that blame is actually sort of nihilistically accepting failure. And, in reality, PR and community management are sciences and in general it is very easy to see where negativity comes from in hindsight. And I think Cata has historically done that, but has been getting more succesful recently in realizing it has the power to control and redirect perceptions about them. It is why these articles exist at all! A big complaint about Cata has been their design process has been very opaque when it leads to bad results, and now the curtain is being lifted a little and while there is still belly aching it is hard not to notice the tone hasn't changed a bit. It is a step in the right direction.

Hopefully they keep making more, and a good way to do that is, again, to make people excited and feel like they are getting something new, no matter what kinda PC they are, where currently a lot of focus is on mages and deckers right now in terms of what they are getting and there is a lot of dancing around what Samurai obviously lost. That dancing is not subtle, and pretending people noticing it are just whiners does not build confidence, even IF they start getting transference and start complaining about the entire edge system (which admittedly may be happening, but I doubt it because, again, new edge inverts why narrative resource mechanics work because it forces the amount of detail the GM must include up rather than down) and being overly negative. Even if the complaints are irrationally hitting unrelated stuff, pointing that out without addressing the thing that was accurately noticed doesn't win you any PR points. it actually loses you them because despite being technically correct your trying to push through an irrational distaste backed by something that is actually rational to be concerned about.
« Last Edit: (18:14:34/07-12-19) by dezmont »

Iron Serpent Prince

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 381
« Reply #181 on: (18:40:22/07-12-19) »
Except that a lot of people loved it in playtesting. So honestly I think that not everyone with a negative opinion will stick with that when it comes to actual play.

I've been involved in some playtest groups.  Nothing involving Catalyst in any way.

One of my first, my gaming group signed up for and was accepted without my involvement.   By the time I had any idea of what was going on, they were saying at our monthly meeting that they had three months to playtest the rules.  I accepted, and was looking forward to it.

To shorten the long story, after three months of excuses and zero play time, the person in charge of the playtest in the group asked everyone if they would allow them to send in a playtest report for the rest of us.  Yes, without any playtime and with only one person even reading the rules.

After everyone else agreed, I followed suit.  I felt dirty about it...  But hey!  We got our names in the book as playtesters!



My point is that while I don't accuse all playtest groups of doing that...  It can happen.  As such the findings of closed playtest groups is suspect at best - and yes it is because of a likely tiny fraction of playtesters.

Personally, if the playtest isn't an open one, I don't put any stock in it.  YMMV.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #182 on: (18:45:57/07-12-19) »
.... Even if the complaints are irrationally hitting unrelated stuff, pointing that out without addressing the thing that was accurately noticed doesn't win you any PR points. it actually loses you them because despite being technically correct your trying to push through an irrational distaste backed by something that is actually rational to be concerned about.

What a constructive post Dezmont.

As the current sole participant in the Internet Constructive Post Committee I am awarding you twelve brownie points, to be spent as you see fit (you can even convert them to bonus edge points when in combat!).

FastJack

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 6033
  • Kids these days...
« Reply #183 on: (19:32:07/07-12-19) »
People have been warned about breaking ToS just after I told the thread to watch it or I'll close the thread. Warnings have been sent, this thread is closed for discussion until tomorrow.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #184 on: (14:02:37/07-16-19) »
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?
2) The QSR talks about drones being able to support one weapon mount, but the intro adventure has a Steel Lynx with four weapons on it. It also encourages splitting dice pools to be able to fire multiple weapons. Can anyone give us a direction on which way this will be in the CRB?
3) For combat, how do the grunt rules cover damage distribution? The QSR talks about AR and DV buffs, but not if/how damage is distributed to a grunt group. Do the players still need to individually target grunts to thin the herd?

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #185 on: (14:42:07/07-16-19) »
For 2. Weapon mounts depending on size in previous editions at least could have multiple weapons. The mount is for like a turret and the turret has 4 guns. As far as I know you only fire one at a time though.

Stainless Steel Devil Rat

  • *
  • Errata Team
  • Prime Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2749
« Reply #186 on: (17:21:49/07-16-19) »
re #3: The attacks are gestalt.  The condition monitors are still separate.

As for #1: Basically, yes.  But we'll see what happens with suggested errata. Maybe nothing, so don't count on anything changing.
RPG mechanics exist to give structure and consistency to the game world, true, but at the end of the day, you’re fighting dragons with algebra and random number generators.

adzling

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 3204
  • Telling it like it is
    • Building Better Security
« Reply #187 on: (17:29:20/07-16-19) »
1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?

100% correct.

Welcome to the inanity 6e

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2420
« Reply #188 on: (20:44:40/07-16-19) »
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?

I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 243
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #189 on: (20:48:54/07-16-19) »
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 142
« Reply #190 on: (20:59:30/07-16-19) »
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.

Melee needs upsides, serious ones, in order to compete with ranged, as you are making intense sacrifices in terms of action economy, attributes, and allowed equipment and 'ware bonuses.

I am skeptical if higher maxed out Dv will help, it didn't help back in 5e when autofire didn't grant DV, but melee SHOULD be spookier than ranged all other things being equal.

Shinobi Killfist

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 2356
« Reply #191 on: (22:02:12/07-16-19) »
Yeah I have no problem with magic allowing you to kick harder than a assault canon. You have to use actions to close, you are out in the open etc.

Sounds like they still make burnout adept the best choice which is stupid. You should be massively penalized for taking ware as an adept and at peak min max get to the same point as a normal pure adept. Magic and ware is not supposed to mix in the setting but they always make it the optimal path.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • ***
  • Posts: 2420
« Reply #192 on: (22:26:39/07-16-19) »
I had a Human burn out adept up to 9P unarmed damage at char gen so, not just Trolls.

Ho-ly drek. That sounds pretty busted when a sniper rifle only does 5P.

To be fair I wouldn't actually play that specific build, it's a white board theory crafted build.  It's how I learn games, just build a zillion characters.  But 6P was easy on a Human, Adept or Samurai.  More is possible, but I am of the opinion once you're doing Assault Rifle damage with your bare hands you can probably find something else to spend your character resources on.  That is just my own personal benchmark for "enough damage".  YMMV.

AFAIK nothing has been reveled on Adepts/Burnouts/whatever, so I'd hold off until you see the CRB.  It's different than 5th, wait till you see it and then you can start a riot or do a jig or whatever seems appropriate. 


Finstersang

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 535
« Reply #193 on: (06:17:23/07-17-19) »
Thanks to Fastjack for unlocking the thread. Hopefully everyone has had some time to chill, so we don't get locked up again.

That aside, I did have a couple questions after reading through through the beginner box.

1) It looks like the melee damage of weapons is fixed, but unarmed is based on strength. So would it behoove high-STR characters (i.e. trolls) to focus on just unarmed combat?
2) The QSR talks about drones being able to support one weapon mount, but the intro adventure has a Steel Lynx with four weapons on it. It also encourages splitting dice pools to be able to fire multiple weapons. Can anyone give us a direction on which way this will be in the CRB?
3) For combat, how do the grunt rules cover damage distribution? The QSR talks about AR and DV buffs, but not if/how damage is distributed to a grunt group. Do the players still need to individually target grunts to thin the herd?

1) Thatīs the biggest issue for me beside Strength apparently turning into an absolute dumpstat: Why would a Troll with Strength 10 do less damage with a knife or a Club than with his fists? It makes no sense, neither from a realism nor from a gameplay/"balancing" PoV. The main advantage of unarmed combat should be that itīs available at pretty much all times, while melee weapons are not.

(I heard rumors that at least the Attack Rating of Melee Weapons skale with Strength. But at least in the QSR, this is not the case: They are fixed values, just like the damage Codes...)

2) Hard to tell how reflective the Drone rules in the QSR are for the full rules. Restricting the load to max. 1 Weapon is probably just a kind of "letīs not make things too complicated"-rule for players that want to try out the Rigger rules. The Steel Lynx in the QSR adventure seems to be some kind of cyberpunk boss monster, so they probably eased up on that restriction for their own "creations". That being said: Holy shit, this beast has 10 Body and 16 Armor? What do you even need a Defense Value that high for? This thing could probably be hit by an Asteroid and still get an Edge (And then perish, because it still soaks with body only. BUT itīs got an Edge!)

3) Pretty sure they are still targeted as individualls. They only attack as a "Swarm". What I find more interesting in this case: Who gets the Edge if the "Swarm" of Mall cops manages to earn one because of their attack? Itīs always assumed that thereīs just one Edge pool for a Group (like in SR5), but the QSR fail to spell that out?

And if thereīs group Edge for Grunts: Is that Edge pool subject to the same totally-not-an-error-seriously-we-really-really-thonked-hard-about-this Limit of max. 2 Edge per round?  ::)

Totoro

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 5
« Reply #194 on: (21:55:05/07-23-19) »
We prefer realistic games in the sense that if you have "average" athletics, you can run about as far as an average person can run in real life, if you jump from a height, it matters how high it is, etc. If the rules obviously don't simulate real life at all (e.g., you can jump 10 meters without any training), then we don't like it. For what it's worth, we've playtested the rules a bit and edge seems to work pretty well. The examples provided in this thread that argued the new system was bad were not problems for us. When defending against an attack, the GM goes through a mental checklist for the attacker:

It's dim: Do I have low light vision? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge. (Yes to both = it's a wash.)
Hard rain: Do I have thermographic vision? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge.
Windy: Do I have a way to compensate? No = defender gets edge. Yes --> does the defender? No = attacker gets edge.

The key for us was not treating the test as relative to the opponent, but rather whether conditions made it easier or harder to score the hit. We house-ruled it a little, but the edge mechanic itself was pretty elegant, IMO. We put the Edge cap at 5, which on the defense side represents full cover, invisibility while at a range, or some other situation that makes it virtually impossible to be hit with a straight shot. (Obviously, full cover can be mitigated with indirect fire like anything else, but if what you are left with is '5', you are going to miss.) We decided to make cover have an impact on edge, not a change to defense because we didn't want to recalculate each time. We also allow up to two edge points for superior attack value, but the algorithm isn't important. Spending all 5 edge points on the defensive side gives you a special effect of "attack misses." I think the risk of our house rule is that the edge mechanic is now kind of like a "modifier," but in practice, it is just as fast as the shadowrun podcasts seem to be. (We're actually faster, but I think it is because we are not performing for an audience or trying to explain the game as we go.) You just say "1 is partial light, 2 is dim light, 3 is shadows, 4 is near darkness, 5 is completely dark" and do the same with other types of conditions (cover, glare, fog, etc.) then see how many the attacker can mitigate. I would have done the same with range, but it is pre-calculated so it doesn't matter much.

We decided you could only replenish edge once per action up to your EDG attribute, but you lost excess edge after your combat turn ended instead of after the combat itself. Even though I'm not happy we had to house-rule this early on, assuming the edge mechanic works the same in the core rules as in the QSR, the edge mechanic itself is pretty solid and is well-worth the reduced complexity IMHO.