NEWS

Combat is SR6?

  • 309 Replies
  • 5895 Views

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 129
« Reply #240 on: (16:22:24/08-08-19) »
+1.

Re-contextualizing this as 'armor isn't literally useless' is pretty much a straw man. Armor has cases where it helps you, even for combat PCs there are edge cases where the difference between a +3 and +4 matters.

The issue is that as a system it is totally flaccid because the differences in outcomes basically don't matter, and it is super transparent that is the case. There isn't a ton of room to argue that point. It honestly feels like there are a ton of smokescreens coming up and wagons being circled to fend off the fact that... at least in terms of combat resolution... the edge system kinda fails to actually do what it is intended to do which is remove complexity while retaining tactical choices and individual situations mattering.

Like SR is a game ABOUT the details. The way edge works sorta forces every fight to be a 'white room' fight and feel identical, and also kinda makes all PCs feel very similar. It just... it KINDA works but that is like saying an octagonal wheel KINDA rolls. I don't see why anyone would actively want to use it. And these aren't surface level problems easily fixed with a houserule (not that they should be). Its kinda baked super hard into the game because you can't 'uncap' edge because of how strong some of the edge actions are, but capped edge makes these values really just not worth thinking about or building around. And it doesn't take too much poking to notice its broken.

It didn't even really make SR a more gritty game really where PCs are less able to faceroll threats easily. It just slightly increased variance so sometimes a PC randomly dies which is super great in a game with slow advancement and the only overarching story in a default campaign being character based. It isn't faster because, while people like to winge on SR5 modifiers, most modifiers were either 100% internal to a PC (Ex: If you were a barrier sensor sniper, you 100% knew your modifier for that) or were something the GM applied and thus could just dictate ("Its dark, take -5"). Edge prevents you from ever KNOWING the 'modifier' situation. It ironically forces you to spend more time thinking about and handling those details, rather than letting the GM just trust the player who has their PC charge on half their attacks pre-calculated their charging dicepool.
« Last Edit: (16:26:37/08-08-19) by dezmont »

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
« Reply #241 on: (17:07:46/08-08-19) »
all that stuff

I pretty much agree with you. Built with similar goals in mind the difference between a ware-based tank and any other ware-based character looking towards defense is a matter of how much body your metatype gives vs. the other and if you have the cash to spare. But I also don't believe there needs to be a distinction between the samurai or the decker in this case, because their attributes and ware are identical sans 3 shifted points. So of course they are going to be almost as resilient as each other.

I also find it flat. I also think the armor, soak, and strength issues are bad design. I personally don't care for the edition much at all. That said, I am having trouble understanding the hang up on why the street sam should be more durable than a peer built and equipped almost exactly the same whom doesn't call himself a street sam.
« Last Edit: (17:21:56/08-08-19) by Lormyr »

dezmont

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 129
« Reply #242 on: (17:28:13/08-08-19) »
all that stuff

I pretty much agree with you. Built with similar goals in mind the difference between a ware-based tank and any other ware-based character looking towards defense is a matter of how much body your metatype gives vs. the other and if you have the cash to spare. But I also don't believe there needs to be a distinction between the samurai or the decker in this case, because their attributes and ware are identical sans 3 shifted points. So of course they are going to be almost as resilient as each other.

I also find it flat. I also think the armor, soak, and strength issues are bad design. I personally don't care for the edition much at all. That said, I am having trouble understanding the hang up on why the street sam should be more durable than a peer built and equipped almost exactly the same whom doesn't call himself a street sam.

My point is more that the things that make a street samurai different don't work to actually create a distinct street samurai identity because most of your value is coming from something any PC expecting to engage in combat is going to take even if they don't specialize in it, while the things you take specifically for combat beyond do not add any value.

Put another way: In SR5, it was very common for faces to spend more of their essence and nuyen on combat 'ware than social 'ware, but they still ended up very distinct mechanically from dedicated samurai despite having very similar 'ware packages because despite the 3-4 ess of combat 'ware they would get, the stuff the samurai got they didn't had real impact simply because the math of combat was different. Despite soak 'ware being an overall lower proportion of your soak, it mattered more due to how soak dicepools work.

Its less "I am miffed Wired 3 makes you good at fighting" as much as "Bone lacing/Dermal Plating/Samurai 'ware investments outside of the basic 'wired package do not have meaningful effects, meaning that samurai as a role, AKA someone who invests very heavily into combat 'ware to get extreme advantages, don't really work, because your outcome is identical to what is probably going to be the optimized face 'ware package."

Spending 2 ess and a ton of resources to get a 1% performance increase is not worth it, and wired 3 is not expensive enough (nor should its price be increased, mind) to prevent any PC who cares about fighting from taking it.
« Last Edit: (17:29:58/08-08-19) by dezmont »

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
« Reply #243 on: (17:36:20/08-08-19) »
Ok, I see what you mean. That is a legit perspective.

I personally found it to be similar in 5e as well, but that has more to do with the build and play of my core group. With a system reset we certainly lost a titanic number of options as compared to 5e, as well as the core changes drastically altering the value of what remains.

Typhus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 196
« Reply #244 on: (18:34:57/08-08-19) »
This hits on something for me too.  I guess one of the turn offs for me in this edition is that the balance points seem to be obviously based around a game theory and not around a reality it's trying to create or present.  For example, on average how much damage *should* one take from a heavy pistol when wearing an armor jacket?  If all else is equal should it stop the damage entirely or just reduce it?  I'm not talking drams of blood measurements, but generally speaking.  It's always been abstracted to not observe hit locations in any edition, granted, but after 1st edition, I've never had a sense of what is true in the game world itself, only what is likely.  In prior editions, I could roll with what I had, but here, I lose any sense of the value of armor or its effect in the world itself, due to its absence in the observable math.  I have no idea if that jacket was supposed to be "effective" or "not very effective". 

I'll say this much: when I take 5 damage from a single hit, and never got to apply any direct benefit to stopping those 5 points, it sure doesn't feel very effective at the table.  If I take a hit from a grunt group?  ~8 damage in a single exchange?  You can visibly see players recoil from that kind of an exchange.  It feels terrible, especially from mook level bad guys.  No way do I want my players feeling that feeling from a group of gangers.  Where they used to be a way to provide a side challenge, and an occasional fun threat to stomp on, now they are terrifying.  I can't use them as flavor as a GM, and players will start running away if I do have them show up in force.  No way would I use the grunt rules as written. 

Even healing being instant cast doesn't offset that.  In fact, it makes it feel and play more like D&D -- and after 5 editions of healing magic taking time, again, this feels like a shift Because Reasons, not because the world is notably different in some way.  There was no mana count uptick or other meta reason.  Shifts happen between editions (duh), but this is a big game changer for how many things actually happen in the game world.  I can't use the same techniques or story design as a GM because the system literally takes a number of options away just on the dice alone.  Combat, gear, and character gen are probably the two largest places that manifests.

Watching the discussions and feedback in general, I don't feel like any amount of errata can fix the issues this game has as written.  It's not a matter of tweaking numbers or re-wording things.  Let's pretend you did that already.  Every rule is clear, sentence structure and tone is now address,ed and all the numbers jive.  The same issues will still persist.  It goes much deeper than errata can smooth out.  The details are just the manifestation. 
« Last Edit: (18:57:13/08-08-19) by Typhus »

duckman

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 23
« Reply #245 on: (21:24:22/08-08-19) »
This hits on something for me too.  I guess one of the turn offs for me in this edition is that the balance points seem to be obviously based around a game theory and not around a reality it's trying to create or present.  For example, on average how much damage *should* one take from a heavy pistol when wearing an armor jacket?  If all else is equal should it stop the damage entirely or just reduce it?  I'm not talking drams of blood measurements, but generally speaking.  It's always been abstracted to not observe hit locations in any edition, granted, but after 1st edition, I've never had a sense of what is true in the game world itself, only what is likely.  In prior editions, I could roll with what I had, but here, I lose any sense of the value of armor or its effect in the world itself, due to its absence in the observable math.  I have no idea if that jacket was supposed to be "effective" or "not very effective". 

I'll say this much: when I take 5 damage from a single hit, and never got to apply any direct benefit to stopping those 5 points, it sure doesn't feel very effective at the table.  If I take a hit from a grunt group?  ~8 damage in a single exchange?  You can visibly see players recoil from that kind of an exchange.  It feels terrible, especially from mook level bad guys.  No way do I want my players feeling that feeling from a group of gangers.  Where they used to be a way to provide a side challenge, and an occasional fun threat to stomp on, now they are terrifying.  I can't use them as flavor as a GM, and players will start running away if I do have them show up in force.  No way would I use the grunt rules as written. 

This in spades.  And let's add some other basic insights.  Rarely do we ever see a single group of grunts in an "interesting" fight.  Multiple gangs (e.g. two of the go-gangs from the QSR at a time or a group of guards, some automated turrets (both grunt groups) and a guard officer.  If I am capped at 2 edge per round (and I expect this to be house-ruled out a lot of places so I say if) then am I *ever* gaining anything for having my armor?  All I need is to get within 4 of enemy AR to keep them from getting edge.  And this specifically means that the guys who are already stacked like the Troll Sam are the ones WHO DON'T NEED ARMOR!  What kind of flavor is that supposed to be?  The guys who benefit from armor are (gasp, imagine that) the burnouts who have casting stats, not Body and Bone Lacing.

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #246 on: (17:19:49/08-10-19) »
To add a little fuel to this fire, armor being more or less pointless suggests that APDS is also more or less pointless. After all, reducing the target's armor doesn't reduce their soakpool and instead plays into the crapshoot of edge gain/denial. Granted, it has the decency to do so while on the attack and hardened armor is still going to be a thing, so it may prove handy in a few fringe scenarios. However, I have been told that in 6e APDS will reduce the damage of whatever gun it's fired from....a decision that must have been made on a gamist basis, because it makes no sense on a simulationist or narrative basis. It wasn't stated how much the damage was reduced and how much armor penetration it granted, but it doesn't really matter, because no one is going to use APDS in 6e. Just 1 point of damage is a significant reduction of any gun's killing power and armor doesn't matter anymore. Better odds of gaining or denying edge (which for some unknown reason is limited to 2 per round) in some small number of very specific scenarios is not worth doing less damage, let alone paying nuyen for the privilege of doing less damage. And yet, that is exactly what the devs have given us.

At this point, we all need to admit that the devs don't know what they're doing.
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

KatoHearts

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 57
« Reply #247 on: (17:22:55/08-10-19) »
It reduces the DV by 1 but AR goes up by 2 for...being less dangerous I guess.

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #248 on: (17:26:44/08-10-19) »
Well, then it's even worse than I thought.
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

KatoHearts

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 57
« Reply #249 on: (17:30:21/08-10-19) »
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.

Hephaestus

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • "Milk Run" is a mighty weird way to spell TPK
« Reply #250 on: (18:36:21/08-10-19) »
To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.

penllawen

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 312
  • Let's go. In and out. Twenty minute milk run.
« Reply #251 on: (18:48:47/08-10-19) »
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.
I don't think that's fair. Weapons in 6e have two axes; DV is a direct reflection of damage dealt, AR is an indirect number that abstracts away all other factors. Explosive boosts damage, which is a combat advantage; no need to double-dip it and boost AR too.

Jareth Valar

  • *
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 96
« Reply #252 on: (19:00:01/08-10-19) »
To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.

Penetration, penetration, penetration! Drilled into us at firearms training. That's the reason we were issued hollow points. Less chance of over-penetration and more of a chance to stop who you're shooting at.

Ghost Rigger

  • *
  • Omae
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
« Reply #253 on: (19:34:15/08-10-19) »
Explosive is the only ammo that increases DV, no effect on AR though, guess doing more damage isn't a combat advantage.
The devs certainly don't seem to think so, or perhaps they didn't think about this at all. -1 DV +2 AR makes you a less effective killing machine and would only help you if you were 1 DV short of being able to gain/deny edge, while +1 DV does that AND makes you more effective killing machine. Contrast this to 5e where APDS and Explosive Rounds perform the same on average; would copy-pasting the ammo statline from 5e make ammo balanced? No, but it would still be an improvement over what we got.

To be fair from a "simulationist" perspective, IRL armor piercing rounds actually do less damage to unarmored targets because the round is designed (both shape and velocity) to punch through metal. Against squishy things, they tend to make a nice tight little hole though the target, then hit whatever is behind it.

Its one of the reasons the FN 5-7 & P90 (5.7x28mm rounds designed to pierce armor) aren't used by law enforcement. Too high a chance to simultaneously not pacify the suspect AND hit the civilian behind them.

Penetration, penetration, penetration! Drilled into us at firearms training. That's the reason we were issued hollow points. Less chance of over-penetration and more of a chance to stop who you're shooting at.
I don't know about that. Sure, if the armor-piercing bullet goes right through the target you've imparted less kinetic energy to it, but you've also put twice as many holes in it as you would with a normal bullet, and maybe hit an important bit you wouldn't have otherwise. Not to mention that most of a human's important bits are protected by decidedly-not-squishy bone....but this is a moot discussion because using armor-piercing rounds against unarmored targets is economically inefficient.
After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.

A Guide to Gridguide

Xenon

  • *
  • Prime Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 5098
« Reply #254 on: (06:05:31/08-11-19) »
FMJ deal less damage. You get a nice small entry hole and a nice small exit hole. In battle you are only allowed to use FMJ (Hague Conventions of 1899). It makes perfect sense that APDS have a slightly lower damage value but that it instead have properties that negates armor.

JHP maximizes the stopping power of the shot. Targets are crippled and immobilized much more so than they are with full metal jacket ammo, increasing the odds of kill and of a successful hunt. It makes perfect sense that Explosive ammo have a slightly higher damage value.