jaymz wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:jaymz wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:jaymz wrote:I really don't get how the ATL-7 is all that broken I mean seriously, unless you are juicer you can only get 1-2 shots off per melee and even a juicer is only going to get 2 shots off per melee.....and it STILL doesn't have the range of a normal Railgun....Give it to a PA or Borg and hook into its nuclear power supply how is it any better or worse than a Boomgun (which everyone recalls IS available in SA as well)?
Compare the cost of the ATL-7 to the cost of a suit of Glitter Boy armor.
If a GM let's a player take this weapon as a regular rifle and allows him the resources to use it as such then that's not the fault of the weapon or the game but the fault of the GM.
Agreed.
But "Any GM that allows this in his game is responsible for the consequences" is a hallmark of a broken weapon.
If it's balanced, then no such warning would need to be applied.
That's like comparing the cost of a LAW to that of an MBT. (one of the same era like an M-60)
Except that in that case, the MBT did more damage.
Here, it's the other way around.
Compare that said GB can also fire its boom gun every attack (minimum of 6 times) not only 1 -2 times per melee
You were talking about Borgs/bot that have the ATL tied to their nuclear power supply.
They'd also be firing every attack.
and has 1000 rounds
Which is significantly less than the infinite ammo from a nuclear power supply.
I really think there are bigger issues in this game than a weapon like the ATL-7
Just because there are bigger fish to fry doesn't mean that this isn't a fish.
It is like the LAW rocket above. If the GM lets the player have unlimited access to rockets all the time is the weapon broken or is that the fault of the GM?
A LAW is a one-shot weapon. You only need one of them.
The ATL-7 can shoot as many times as you have E-Clips.
If the party gets ONE ATL-7, then as long as they have it, the only way to restrict them is to monitor and restrict the number of E-Clips they have.
Which isn't the same thing as restricting the number of rockets that they have.
--Actually in Compendium of Modern Weapons LAWs can do similar damage to a Tank gun.
CoMW isn't statted the same as Palladium's other games.
--Yes PA and borgs could fire every attack, however that is not the norm or typical but an exception.
You were the one picking that comparison, not me.
The unit would also have less armour than the GB, won't be laser resistant and still only have less than 1/3 the range. Also after a few encounters or even during a single encounter that person carrying the weapon is GOING to become a primary target just as any GB would. Also a simple spell won;t make you impervious to a boomgun. Still not out of whack to me.
I don't think that "isn't quite on equal terms with a Glitter Boy" is a good standard for whether or not something is broken, though.
As I said, compare the COST.
How much does an ATL-7 cost?
How much does a Boom Gun cost?
(Seriously- I'm away from my books. So there's an off-chance that the ATL-7 costs MORE... but I doubt it.)
--Ammo may be infinite but the unit carrying the weapon still becomes a primary target of any opponents they may face, just like a GB.
So they're equal... except that one has infinite ammo.
Also 1000 rounds for a boomgun, in most respects will last long enough to be essentially infinite in terms how most campaigns last if not long enough to actually be able replenish the ammo supply.
If you want to agree that ammo isn't a factor, that's fine... but you were holding up the GB's ammunition as if it somehow made the weapon superior to a weapon with infinite ammo.
And that doesn't work.
--It's only a fish of you view it as such and it should be obvious by now that I do not really see it as such.
Reality isn't dictated by perception.
--Those are all largely disposable so that just makes the ATL-7 a reloadable energy based LAW. Is there anything comparable in North America? Yep the CR-1. Comparable damage (MRM warheads) and can keep firing as long as you have missiles to fire. Needs a two man team to essentially be portable and effective and that is in RUE. Is that weapon broken as well?
Compare the damage, compare the cost, compare the encumberance of the ammo.
You keep trying to compare only the similarities, and by that standard, NOTHING is broken.
"Oh, that Synchro Pistol that shoots a mile? A mini-missile has the same range. What's the big deal...?"
"A vibro-blade doesn't have a better strike or parry bonus than a normal sword, so they're really not significantly better."
And so forth.
I order to argue for or againt balance honestly, you also need to take a good look a the differences.