Forums of the Megaverse®

I was saying not many games use damage capacity and reduction for armor. Sorry for the mix up.

eliakon wrote:That's a pretty significant change though.
In RL there is damage reduction, armor is not ablative. No amount of rifle bullets will harm a tank
In Palladium there is no damage reduction, all armor is ablative, and sufficient rifle bullets will destroy anything.
Ergo we can see that by the rules, weapons in RL and Palladium work differently.

Yes, they do, but we have no evidence that they work differently outside those specific differences. And that is the point - the fact that armor is ablative (for example) does not give any indication as to how two weapons, firing together and operated by the same individual with a single action, will damage a target as compared to the same two weapons operated by different individuals using different actions.

cosmicfish wrote:

eliakon wrote:That's a pretty significant change though.
In RL there is damage reduction, armor is not ablative. No amount of rifle bullets will harm a tank
In Palladium there is no damage reduction, all armor is ablative, and sufficient rifle bullets will destroy anything.
Ergo we can see that by the rules, weapons in RL and Palladium work differently.

Yes, they do, but we have no evidence that they work differently outside those specific differences. And that is the point - the fact that armor is ablative (for example) does not give any indication as to how two weapons, firing together and operated by the same individual with a single action, will damage a target as compared to the same two weapons operated by different individuals using different actions.

That is where looking at the many in game examples of combi-weapons, and various burst firing and pulse firing weapons and comparing them to the damage output of various combination, burst, and Gatling style weapons in the real world comes in.....
and the results of that tend to be 'real world weapons scale up much differently than game weapons and thus are not at all similar go back to square one'

eliakon wrote:That is where looking at the many in game examples of combi-weapons, and various burst firing and pulse firing weapons and comparing them to the damage output of various combination, burst, and Gatling style weapons in the real world comes in.....
and the results of that tend to be 'real world weapons scale up much differently than game weapons and thus are not at all similar go back to square one'

Which is fine, because to the best of my recollection we have only really been looking at how multiple weapons scale in game anyway.

A more realistic system would evaluate the effects of each hit separately, be it on a structure or a living creature in addition to a cumulative effect.

Jefffar wrote:A more realistic system would evaluate the effects of each hit separately, be it on a structure or a living creature in addition to a cumulative effect.

So like R. Talsorian? If all rounds always either hit or miss then there is a single damage given x damage doesn't always equal one shot. If all rounds don't always hit then burt comes in and every point over the opponents dodge roll is another strike up to a given burst value. If the weapon has ridiculous kick you may want to use scatter instead of burst to simulate the rounds/groupings of shots hitting different hit locations.

There is probably an effective upper limit to how many energy weapons you cobble together whether from weight concerns or the cooling needed to keep functional. This especially applies to railguns which in reality tend to melt the coils.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Jefffar wrote:A more realistic system would evaluate the effects of each hit separately, be it on a structure or a living creature in addition to a cumulative effect.

So like R. Talsorian? If all rounds always either hit or miss then there is a single damage given x damage doesn't always equal one shot. If all rounds don't always hit then burt comes in and every point over the opponents dodge roll is another strike up to a given burst value. If the weapon has ridiculous kick you may want to use scatter instead of burst to simulate the rounds/groupings of shots hitting different hit locations.

Or something like in GURPS, where each round in a burst is matched against armor separately.

Wound/Damage effect style systems are more realistic than a HP/Ablative system though a hybrid would probably be most realistic - and time consuming.

In either case armour should have a chance to negate or reduce the effects of each hit

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

My statements are quite correct, there is no qualitative difference between mega-damage dealt by a hand weapon or a vehicle weapon, that 1d6 mega-damage hand laser is dealing just as much damage as that 1d6 mega-damage vehicle-mounted railgun and nothing in the rules suggest that somehow that hand laser's damage isn't as damaging as the vehicle's weapon. Just as items that are CLEARLY exceptions don't by definition qualify as the rule, they demonstrate the existence of the rule by being exceptions to it.

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

Actually both and neither of these are true.
BOTH SDC and MDC armor are fully ablative in that they both take full damage from any and all weapons that do damage to them.

AR is a special case which mostly models how hard it is to get a solid hit on armor not how tough it is (though some of the non-rifts games and the compendium of modern weapons have done some retcon work allowing AP to lower AR, it still does nothing to actually reduce the damage you take. Either it causes a full miss/deflection or you still take full damage)

There are a few rare forms of armor that reduce that armor by a percentage but there are AFAIK no armors that have an actual damage reduction (i.e. reduce damage by 30). Similarly increase to armor-piercing has to be modeled as increasing raw damage for the same reason. Thus AP bullets will cause unarmored things to blow up faster because since there is no armor to pierce it then starts depleting the internal DC faster.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:My recommendation is to scrap what the game says and do it in a method that makes sense. Personally, I have graded weapons and armour, and damage is on a "per round" basis (none of this 10-40 shots does X damage garbage). This can (and has) made some weapons better than they were, and some worse than they were, but it has otherwise balanced itself out.

Sooo... just scrap the Palladium rules and start from scratch?

That's my personal recommendation, but you needn't do this to achieve desired results.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Or is your 1d6MD laser really the same as the 1d6MD railgun when shooting a Glitterboy? There is a ton of junk like this that the game just does not address. Officially there is zero difference between ion, particle beam, and plasma damage; so why bother separating them?

Color. Seriously, without canon rules differentiating between them, the descriptions are just as much fluff as the pictures.

Dog_O_War wrote:Maybe because there is actually a difference that they never really elaborated on? And that's just damage across one category.

If they did not elaborate on it in the rules, then from a RAW perspective there is no difference. You can house-rule differences, but that just makes a slightly different version of the game, which only your group plays, in which these differences exist. The original game takes no notice.

But don't you see? They did make them different via the RAW; it's the RAW stating that they are different. It is just not elaborated on. We know that (via the RAW) lasers, PB, ion, and plasma are all energy damage. Lasers just happen to also have a variable frequency (which for almost 20 years only mattered against one bot, desite its pervasiveness) and may or may not have a reduced profile against certain armours and in water. We also know that lasers, PB, and ions are not good for grenades and other explosives, but plasma apparently is. This information is all via the RAW.

So from the RAW perspective, there is a difference. It's just vague for the most part.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Or you could take that bogus thought and throw it in the garbage and realize that there are in fact glaring errors and failings of thought when they were designing how these weapons interacted with each other.

I cannot tell if you are raging against canon vehicles or kit-bashed vehicles, but either one applies. The equipment in Rifts was not especially designed to be sensible, it was designed to be fun and "balanced", and as a result is woefully inconsistent and illogical. Again, this can be corrected only by ignoring RAW.

Book and page number where it says that the equipment presented was not designed to be sensible, because I can't find a single RAW entry that states this, but I can find plenty of fluff entries where this is exactly how various pieces of equipment are presented; as sensible.

Additionally, if this equipment was designed to be balanced, then why is it so unbalanced? Why is most of the junk in the books unfun?

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

My statements are quite correct, there is no qualitative difference between mega-damage dealt by a hand weapon or a vehicle weapon, that 1d6 mega-damage hand laser is dealing just as much damage as that 1d6 mega-damage vehicle-mounted railgun and nothing in the rules suggest that somehow that hand laser's damage isn't as damaging as the vehicle's weapon. Just as items that are CLEARLY exceptions don't by definition qualify as the rule, they demonstrate the existence of the rule by being exceptions to it.

Except for the quantifiable difference where larger, heavier weapons do more damage. You know, other than that qualitative difference, which is where the inconsistency lies, is there a difference between hand weapons and vehicle-mounted weapons. It's almost as if this was the original goal, but it was implemented or otherwise elaborated on very poorly

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

Actually both and neither of these are true.
BOTH SDC and MDC armor are fully ablative in that they both take full damage from any and all weapons that do damage to them.

AR is a special case which mostly models how hard it is to get a solid hit on armor not how tough it is (though some of the non-rifts games and the compendium of modern weapons have done some retcon work allowing AP to lower AR, it still does nothing to actually reduce the damage you take. Either it causes a full miss/deflection or you still take full damage)

I like how the entire SDC system of damage-taking is a "special case"

But that aside, I don't know if it's appropriate to mention that certain super-abilities, though not Rifts in origin, are still applicable in Rifts, and have a "reduce damage by X" style of existence. Don't consider this one a point, but rather something to consider, given that it can exist in Rifts.

eliakon wrote:There are a few rare forms of armor that reduce that armor by a percentage but there are AFAIK no armors that have an actual damage reduction (i.e. reduce damage by 30). Similarly increase to armor-piercing has to be modeled as increasing raw damage for the same reason. Thus AP bullets will cause unarmored things to blow up faster because since there is no armor to pierce it then starts depleting the internal DC faster.

I'm not sure what you're picturing with an armour rating system, but how I have it set up fits exactly with what exists. If you have a better armour than the gun your opponent is using, reduce the damage by a percentage. If their gun is better, increase it by a percentage. That works within the realm of Rifts 100% because this system already exists, but the difference here is you're elaborating on every weapon and armour instead of just certain weapons and armours.

Well, there is naruni thermo-kinetic armor and NG has ballistic armor. As mentioned the GB reduces laser damage.

There are some spots where reduction and ablative mix, just that they aren't the most common. The compendium of modern weapons treats body armor as reduction in a bit of an odd way.

Dog_O_War wrote:But don't you see? They did make them different via the RAW; it's the RAW stating that they are different. It is just not elaborated on. We know that (via the RAW) lasers, PB, ion, and plasma are all energy damage. Lasers just happen to also have a variable frequency (which for almost 20 years only mattered against one bot, desite its pervasiveness) and may or may not have a reduced profile against certain armours and in water. We also know that lasers, PB, and ions are not good for grenades and other explosives, but plasma apparently is. This information is all via the RAW.

Energy weapons vs non-energy weapons is a valid distinction in RAW that no one here is disputing. There are a few very specific and uncommon functional differences between energy weapons, such as those you noted about lasers. We DON'T know that "lasers, PB, and ions are not good for grenades and other explosives", we only know that we have not seen those yet - I don't recall anywhere saying such were impossible.

And this is the point. There are no general differences between the different types of energy weapons. There are a few very specific differences that only apply in very specific situations - specific energy weapon X and against specific X-resistant or X-vulnerable armor Y sort of thing. Outside the GB, I don't think I've ever seen one come up in play, and if they were real, fundamental differences then they would have.

Dog_O_War wrote:So from the RAW perspective, there is a difference. It's just vague for the most part.

It's not vague - it is extremely limited and situational. Vague implies that they have rules that are simply badly communicated. If there are rules at all (and I do not think that there are) then they are not being communicated at all, outside of a few special circumstances.

Dog_O_War wrote:Book and page number where it says that the equipment presented was not designed to be sensible, because I can't find a single RAW entry that states this, but I can find plenty of fluff entries where this is exactly how various pieces of equipment are presented; as sensible.

If you want book and page number then tell Palladium to rerelease all the books with indexes. There are a few thousand pages scattered across something like 60 or so books, and I can't remember where I read their motivation in designing gear and am too busy with my actual research to spend a week on a side project.

Dog_O_War wrote:Additionally, if this equipment was designed to be balanced, then why is it so unbalanced? Why is most of the junk in the books unfun?

Well, it is unbalanced because they don't have any real rules that they are using to design this stuff, and when you have no rules and a bunch of authors spread over a decade or two then balance is all but impossible to achieve. I've had this discussion with some of the GURPS designers before, and the simple fact is that most people capable of writing a good RPG book suck at the kind of math and engineering needed to work a system that actually ensures balance.

As to why is most of it is "unfun", I think that comes down to a combination of your personal perspective and the simple fact that nobody's perfect. For probably every significant item out there there is someone going "yeah, I like that!" even if a majority are turning up their noses. So what? So long as there is enough material that everyone can find some fun stuff, that's all we need! I don't personally find Crazies to be fun at all. That's fine, they have Juicers and T-men and lots of other stuff that I DO like.

Dog_O_War wrote:Except for the quantifiable difference where larger, heavier weapons do more damage. You know, other than that qualitative difference, which is where the inconsistency lies, is there a difference between hand weapons and vehicle-mounted weapons. It's almost as if this was the original goal, but it was implemented or otherwise elaborated on very poorly

There are also numerous examples where larger, heavier weapons DON'T do more damage, or do slightly more damage despite being massively larger. For example:

The NG-101 railgun does 6d6MD (max 36, avg 21) to 4000 ft, and weighs (total) 208lb plus 25lb per 300 round belt.

The NG-202 railgun does 1d4x10MD (max 40, avg 25) to 4000 ft, and weighs (total) 298lb plus 35lb per 300 round belt.

That is an 11-19% damage increase for a 43% mass increase... unless you look at the per round damage, which is actually identical. Bigger gun, same damage.

On the old Triax X-5000 Devastator we are presented with the TX-5001 "super ion cannon" which is at least 20ft long and does 2d4x10MD out to 4000', while the "ion belly gun turret" on the same robot, a ball turret maybe 3ft across, does 1d4x10MD out to 4000'. The apparent difference in volume of the actual weapons appear to be three orders of magnitude apart (approximately) and yet the difference in damage is only twice. The Devastator would be better off just replacing the enormous gun with a quad turret.

There is no rhyme and reason to it, that's why South America was so badly cocked up - no rules to follow!

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:But don't you see? They did make them different via the RAW; it's the RAW stating that they are different. It is just not elaborated on. We know that (via the RAW) lasers, PB, ion, and plasma are all energy damage. Lasers just happen to also have a variable frequency (which for almost 20 years only mattered against one bot, desite its pervasiveness) and may or may not have a reduced profile against certain armours and in water. We also know that lasers, PB, and ions are not good for grenades and other explosives, but plasma apparently is. This information is all via the RAW.

Energy weapons vs non-energy weapons is a valid distinction in RAW that no one here is disputing. There are a few very specific and uncommon functional differences between energy weapons, such as those you noted about lasers. We DON'T know that "lasers, PB, and ions are not good for grenades and other explosives", we only know that we have not seen those yet - I don't recall anywhere saying such were impossible.

And this is the point. There are no general differences between the different types of energy weapons. There are a few very specific differences that only apply in very specific situations - specific energy weapon X and against specific X-resistant or X-vulnerable armor Y sort of thing. Outside the GB, I don't think I've ever seen one come up in play, and if they were real, fundamental differences then they would have.

The fact that you have to state that there are different types is a "general difference".
The fact that nowhere within the RAW will you find laser, PB, or ion grenades is a "general difference". Which, while you may say that, "well we have not seen those yet", does nothing to lend credibility to your stance that there are no general differences. The form in which you can get an energy weapon is a general difference. Another big one is your sampling of what has come up in play; that has zero weight on whether or not there are general differences between the energy types. As per the RAW, there are in-game manufacturers that specialize in the different types; that is a general difference.

How many more "general differences" within the RAW do I need to point out before you realize that, "hey, these are in-fact not the same", even if there has been poor elaboration on the subject?

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:So from the RAW perspective, there is a difference. It's just vague for the most part.

It's not vague - it is extremely limited and situational. Vague implies that they have rules that are simply badly communicated.

Wow, it's almost like you got what I meant here by my use of 'vague'
That is, they are vague. Dragging in HU conversioned powers, you'll note that plasma in-fact has all sorts of different properties within the realm of Rifts, as do lasers.

cosmicfish wrote:If there are rules at all (and I do not think that there are) then they are not being communicated at all, outside of a few special circumstances.

This is kind of the point I'm digging at. The differences have been noted and they are notable, but we aren't being given the whole picture; it's been poorly elaborated on.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Book and page number where it says that the equipment presented was not designed to be sensible, because I can't find a single RAW entry that states this, but I can find plenty of fluff entries where this is exactly how various pieces of equipment are presented; as sensible.

If you want book and page number then tell Palladium to rerelease all the books with indexes.

One has nothing to do with the other. If you cannot provide a book and page number, then withdraw your claim or be more clear that you're giving your opinion instead of trying to assert it as a fact.

cosmicfish wrote:There are a few thousand pages scattered across something like 60 or so books, and I can't remember where I read their motivation in designing gear and am too busy with my actual research to spend a week on a side project.

That's cool I suppose. It really is easier then to just post conjecture than to bother to look up what you're talking about

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Additionally, if this equipment was designed to be balanced, then why is it so unbalanced? Why is most of the junk in the books unfun?

Well, it is unbalanced because they don't have any real rules that they are using to design this stuff,

Do you have a book and page reference, employee identification card from Palladium, a former staff-members' tell-all book, or any form of proof in regards to this claim? Or is this more conjecture, or possibly just your opinion that you've failed to clearly identify as such?

cosmicfish wrote:and when you have no rules and a bunch of authors spread over a decade or two then balance is all but impossible to achieve.

Do you happen to have a book or something (I'd accept even an article from your family newspaper at this point) detailing your own twoish decade experience authoring rpgs or any other comparative experience regarding your self-assured expertise on the matter? Or is this more opinion/conjecture?

cosmicfish wrote:I've had this discussion with some of the GURPS designers before, and the simple fact is that most people capable of writing a good RPG book suck at the kind of math and engineering needed to work a system that actually ensures balance.

I don't suppose you'd be able to get any of them to chime in that this conversation you've allegedly had actually took place, would you? No?

To be clear, I believe you. I believe you've talked to those people. But the fact remains that you can provide zero proof of such (I'll throw up an edit and an apology if otherwise). Which is kind of my point here; stick to facts. Only make statements you can back up with such, and make sure your opinion is clear. I do not like it when a discussion gets mired in one persons' opinion versus another persons "facts".

eliakon wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Jefffar wrote:A more realistic system would evaluate the effects of each hit separately, be it on a structure or a living creature in addition to a cumulative effect.

So like R. Talsorian? If all rounds always either hit or miss then there is a single damage given x damage doesn't always equal one shot. If all rounds don't always hit then burt comes in and every point over the opponents dodge roll is another strike up to a given burst value. If the weapon has ridiculous kick you may want to use scatter instead of burst to simulate the rounds/groupings of shots hitting different hit locations.

Or something like in GURPS, where each round in a burst is matched against armor separately.

Still couldn't be all rounds and probably groups them since a weapon with a 2000 rounds/min cyclic rate is 33 rounds per second. Does GURPS have you roll 33 times for a mini gun or HK G11?

Dog_O_War wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

Actually both and neither of these are true.
BOTH SDC and MDC armor are fully ablative in that they both take full damage from any and all weapons that do damage to them.

AR is a special case which mostly models how hard it is to get a solid hit on armor not how tough it is (though some of the non-rifts games and the compendium of modern weapons have done some retcon work allowing AP to lower AR, it still does nothing to actually reduce the damage you take. Either it causes a full miss/deflection or you still take full damage)

I like how the entire SDC system of damage-taking is a "special case"

No, the SDC system is not a special case.
SDC damage follows the exact same system of damage. You take your damage off of your DC

AR though provides no form whatsoever of reduction. Period. Dot. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, do not reduce damage by 30 DC.

ALL AR does by the rules is affect if something missed you/bounced off and even THEN that is only for a TINY subset of AR (natural AR and Vehicular AR...which is not even accurate as not all vehicles get to use that AR rule.)

eliakon wrote:No, the SDC system is not a special case.
SDC damage follows the exact same system of damage. You take your damage off of your DC

AR though provides no form whatsoever of reduction. Period. Dot. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, do not reduce damage by 30 DC.

Really? So in certain situations, you wouldn't reduce the damage by 100%?

Dog_O_War wrote:

eliakon wrote:No, the SDC system is not a special case.
SDC damage follows the exact same system of damage. You take your damage off of your DC

AR though provides no form whatsoever of reduction. Period. Dot. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, do not reduce damage by 30 DC.

Really? So in certain situations, you wouldn't reduce the damage by 100%?

Thats a negation, not a reduction.

Jefffar wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

eliakon wrote:No, the SDC system is not a special case.
SDC damage follows the exact same system of damage. You take your damage off of your DC

AR though provides no form whatsoever of reduction. Period. Dot. End of story. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars, do not reduce damage by 30 DC.

Really? So in certain situations, you wouldn't reduce the damage by 100%?

Thats a negation, not a reduction.

That's just semantics; the damage still exists, but you're taking none of it.

In that same vein; a glitterboy negates 50% of all laser damage.

MDC negates SD in amounts less than 100.

etc.

Are we confusing AR which determines if something successfully protects what's inside of it and natural AR which determines if damage is dealt at all?

flatline wrote:Are we confusing AR which determines if something successfully protects what's inside of it and natural AR which determines if damage is dealt at all?

If we were, that would be another poor elaboration on-part of the game.

Because just saying "the natural AR of an M1 Abrams" even sounds oxymoronic.

But mainly (in-so-far as I have seen at least, which I'll admit my knowledge on ARs is limited), it's typically just written as "AR" and not "artificial/natural AR", though you can find instances of "natural AR" here and there.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Nightmask is correct according to the rules as written.

I would hazard a guess, however, that this exact issue is the primary driver for MD hate. I know it is for me.

If he were, then why are there examples within the books which state the exact opposite?

For example, SDC has AR, and depending on how good your armour is (arbitrarily), determines what you can ignore. Or in the realm of MDC, certain armours can cut your damage in half, or otherwise reduce damage by a percentage due to their qualities. Or how some weapons have special armour-piecing properties which has them doing increased damage?

Because given all that, his statements seem far from correct according to the rules as written.

My statements are quite correct, there is no qualitative difference between mega-damage dealt by a hand weapon or a vehicle weapon, that 1d6 mega-damage hand laser is dealing just as much damage as that 1d6 mega-damage vehicle-mounted railgun and nothing in the rules suggest that somehow that hand laser's damage isn't as damaging as the vehicle's weapon. Just as items that are CLEARLY exceptions don't by definition qualify as the rule, they demonstrate the existence of the rule by being exceptions to it.

Except for the quantifiable difference where larger, heavier weapons do more damage. You know, other than that qualitative difference, which is where the inconsistency lies, is there a difference between hand weapons and vehicle-mounted weapons. It's almost as if this was the original goal, but it was implemented or otherwise elaborated on very poorly

That's a difference in quantity/intensity NOT quality. There is no qualitative difference between a 1d6 mega-damage laser vs a 1d6 mega-damage particle beam or a 1d6 mega-damage railgun round, as far as armor is concerned (other than the few exceptions that exist) they ALL deal the same measure of damage no matter how different the damage-dealing delivery system is. That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Dog_O_War wrote:

flatline wrote:Are we confusing AR which determines if something successfully protects what's inside of it and natural AR which determines if damage is dealt at all?

If we were, that would be another poor elaboration on-part of the game.

Because just saying "the natural AR of an M1 Abrams" even sounds oxymoronic.

But mainly (in-so-far as I have seen at least, which I'll admit my knowledge on ARs is limited), it's typically just written as "AR" and not "artificial/natural AR", though you can find instances of "natural AR" here and there.

There is a substantial difference between the different ARs
The general AR simply determines if the Armor or the Subject is hit.
A few armors are 'natural' and if the roll to strike is under the AR the entire blow does no damage. However the confusing thing is that the mechanic is NOT one of 'damage reduction' but one of basically 'failed to penetrate' because aiming better will punch through nAR while simply getting a bigger gun will not.

Nightmask wrote:That's a difference in quantity/intensity NOT quality. There is no qualitative difference between a 1d6 mega-damage laser vs a 1d6 mega-damage particle beam or a 1d6 mega-damage railgun round, as far as armor is concerned (other than the few exceptions that exist) they ALL deal the same measure of damage no matter how different the damage-dealing delivery system is.

So this is the short version of your sentence as I read it: "all the weapons are the same, except where they're different!"
That is; you're contradicting yourself from one line to the next, and you're trying to down-play it by calling these instances of difference "rare". But the fact of the matter is that they are not "rare". There are a ton of examples where the weapons' "qualitative difference" matters. For example, a regular railgun round and DU round. Against some targets, there is no difference, but against the otherwise plentiful number of SN creatures, it makes a difference. Or silvered rounds. Or the type of energy you shoot; some targets are immune to plasma, or resistant to lasers, or suffer increased damage when a fire is also magical, etc.

Or to state it differently: (regular) lasers will always do reduced damage versus a Glitterboy; railguns will always do less damage versus kinetic-resistant armours; SD will always need to be in groups of 100 to deal 1 MDC. Etc. These qualities always exist, even if they do not always come into effect. They aren't "exceptions" they always happen.

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That's a difference in quantity/intensity NOT quality. There is no qualitative difference between a 1d6 mega-damage laser vs a 1d6 mega-damage particle beam or a 1d6 mega-damage railgun round, as far as armor is concerned (other than the few exceptions that exist) they ALL deal the same measure of damage no matter how different the damage-dealing delivery system is.

So this is the short version of your sentence as I read it: "all the weapons are the same, except where they're different!"
That is; you're contradicting yourself from one line to the next, and you're trying to down-play it by calling these instances of difference "rare". But the fact of the matter is that they are not "rare". There are a ton of examples where the weapons' "qualitative difference" matters. For example, a regular railgun round and DU round. Against some targets, there is no difference, but against the otherwise plentiful number of SN creatures, it makes a difference. Or silvered rounds. Or the type of energy you shoot; some targets are immune to plasma, or resistant to lasers, or suffer increased damage when a fire is also magical, etc.Or to state it differently: (regular) lasers will always do reduced damage versus a Glitterboy; railguns will always do less damage versus kinetic-resistant armours; SD will always need to be in groups of 100 to deal 1 MDC. Etc. These qualities always exist, even if they do not always come into effect. They aren't "exceptions" they always happen.

Those though ARE the exceptions though not the rules.
In most cases it doesn't matter what the source of damage is in combat, just that you did X Damage and if the target has More or Less than X DC.
In a few cases (almost always involving magic, super powers, or the supernatural) it may be relevant to determine if you did X damage in the first place by figuring out weapon was used to do the damage.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

I am going to have to agree with Nightmask on that one, its all abstracted into "DC" after a certain point.

Dog_O_War wrote:The fact that you have to state that there are different types is a "general difference".
The fact that nowhere within the RAW will you find laser, PB, or ion grenades is a "general difference". Which, while you may say that, "well we have not seen those yet", does nothing to lend credibility to your stance that there are no general differences. The form in which you can get an energy weapon is a general difference. Another big one is your sampling of what has come up in play; that has zero weight on whether or not there are general differences between the energy types. As per the RAW, there are in-game manufacturers that specialize in the different types; that is a general difference.

How many more "general differences" within the RAW do I need to point out before you realize that, "hey, these are in-fact not the same", even if there has been poor elaboration on the subject?

More, apparently, because I find the "general differences" you've listed to be meaningless. The fact that I can get plasma grenades is only really of importance when I am buying grenades, not when I am comparing energy weapons. The fact that weapons are listed as ion, or laser, or PB, or death ray doesn't matter unless those translate into game effects that are reasonably consistent with the type AND come up more than once in a blue moon. That in-game manufacturers specialize in one or the other is meaningless if (despite the different technology) I can find comparable weapons at each one - it is no more different than saying that one manufacturer always puts handles on top while the other manufacturer never does.

Dog_O_War wrote:That is, they are vague. Dragging in HU conversioned powers, you'll note that plasma in-fact has all sorts of different properties within the realm of Rifts, as do lasers.

And do those properties explicitly apply to Rifts plasma weapons? If I pick up a plasma rifle, do I get to use the "HU conversioned powers" as the basis for my weapon's operation?

Dog_O_War wrote:This is kind of the point I'm digging at. The differences have been noted and they are notable, but we aren't being given the whole picture; it's been poorly elaborated on.

"Poorly elaborated on" to me implies that back at Palladium HQ there is a list of rules and guidelines that significantly impact game play as it pertains to these types of weapons. It is my opinion that no real such guidelines exist, because I do not see any real evidence of them.

Dog_O_War wrote:One has nothing to do with the other. If you cannot provide a book and page number, then withdraw your claim or be more clear that you're giving your opinion instead of trying to assert it as a fact.

I am giving a recollection. Take it as you will. Dispute it, ignore it, call it names. I have better things to do than satisfy your demand that everything I state be documented and notarized.

Dog_O_War wrote:That's cool I suppose. It really is easier then to just post conjecture than to bother to look up what you're talking about

Yes, it is. That's the point. I suppose I could do a thesis on the inner workings of Palladium Games, but I already have a thesis to work on and I'm just not interested in taking on the side project of sorting through all that undocumented, unindexed material to satisfy a guy on a forum.

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you have a book and page reference, employee identification card from Palladium, a former staff-members' tell-all book, or any form of proof in regards to this claim? Or is this more conjecture, or possibly just your opinion that you've failed to clearly identify as such?

Recollection, and opinion. Take your pick, I really don't care.

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you happen to have a book or something (I'd accept even an article from your family newspaper at this point) detailing your own twoish decade experience authoring rpgs or any other comparative experience regarding your self-assured expertise on the matter? Or is this more opinion/conjecture?

I never claimed experience authoring RPG's, and unless you think I am also a "bunch of authors" I cannot see why you would think I had. The decades and authors are Palladium's own. As to my own professional experience, since it isn't in RPG design it is also exactly the kind of thing I don't want to show here. And if I am not going to post my CV here, are you going to take anything I say as meaningful? I doubt it. If we had any shared experience (like the "color of the shooting house door in Hereford") then I could exchange familiarities with you, but unless you have either military or engineering experience that is doubtful.

Dog_O_War wrote:I don't suppose you'd be able to get any of them to chime in that this conversation you've allegedly had actually took place, would you? No?

To be clear, I believe you. I believe you've talked to those people. But the fact remains that you can provide zero proof of such (I'll throw up an edit and an apology if otherwise). Which is kind of my point here; stick to facts. Only make statements you can back up with such, and make sure your opinion is clear. I do not like it when a discussion gets mired in one persons' opinion versus another persons "facts".

I don't think we can or should post links to other game designer's fora on here, but if you search GURPS forums for Kromm, post 1451037, you should see him say:

Not to mention that after 17 years as an editor for an RPG publisher, I can say with total confidence that it's an utter myth that all RPG writers like rules and/or are good at navigating them. The majority are fond of specific areas of real-world erudition and want to bring those to their hobby, gaming. They strive to translate what they know into rules terms. The reason why I have a full time job and a full-time assistant is that many, even most of these people require a rules expert to hash out stats and mechanics to go with their material. Thus, it isn't surprising at all that the only freelancers who actively like designing vehicles are those interested in vehicles in their own right . . . and that the rest often find such design to be painful.

Ultimately, I'm saying that RPG writers are writers, not accountants. They're mostly drawn from the side of the hobby that enjoys drama, history, and fine turns of phrase. Certainly, there are numbers geeks-turned-pro, but they constitute a minority of the professionals in this business.

And that is for one of the crunchiest, rules-heavy games in existence. It is talking specifically about creating design rules for vehicles which, not incidentally, also includes design rules for weapons. Is that adequate? Sean Punch is not likely to participate on here personally, sorry.

Oh hey, what about those examples I gave? What rules or structure explains those, along with the other various energy weapons in Rifts? I am genuinely curious, I like systems for designing things, it is why I became an engineer, and RPG's like Rifts and GURPS were influential in the specialty I chose.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That's a difference in quantity/intensity NOT quality. There is no qualitative difference between a 1d6 mega-damage laser vs a 1d6 mega-damage particle beam or a 1d6 mega-damage railgun round, as far as armor is concerned (other than the few exceptions that exist) they ALL deal the same measure of damage no matter how different the damage-dealing delivery system is.

So this is the short version of your sentence as I read it: "all the weapons are the same, except where they're different!"
That is; you're contradicting yourself from one line to the next, and you're trying to down-play it by calling these instances of difference "rare". But the fact of the matter is that they are not "rare". There are a ton of examples where the weapons' "qualitative difference" matters. For example, a regular railgun round and DU round. Against some targets, there is no difference, but against the otherwise plentiful number of SN creatures, it makes a difference. Or silvered rounds. Or the type of energy you shoot; some targets are immune to plasma, or resistant to lasers, or suffer increased damage when a fire is also magical, etc.

Or to state it differently: (regular) lasers will always do reduced damage versus a Glitterboy; railguns will always do less damage versus kinetic-resistant armours; SD will always need to be in groups of 100 to deal 1 MDC. Etc. These qualities always exist, even if they do not always come into effect. They aren't "exceptions" they always happen.

No contradictions in anything I've said, when one is discussing how things are in general then you don't care about the exceptions because they're exceptions meaning they obviously violate the basic rule that you're discussing. Those things ARE exceptions because lasers do not ALWAYS suffer reduced damage against everything only against things that are laser-resistant meaning they're EXCEPTIONS i.e. things that violate the normal rules. The fact that there are a number of exceptions around doesn't mean the actual rule no longer exists or that the exceptions are the rule they aren't.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

No, that's 100% right and with how the game is written by the rules, in general, all weapons deal their damage to all armor the same no matter what kind of damaging effect they have nor is bringing up the hand weapons issue a non-point/red herring but points that refute what YOU brought up trying to argue that somehow hand weapons should be unable to harm the large vehicles like tanks because you think that they shouldn't be able to because RL SDC hand-guns can't damage an RL SDC tank. What's in contention is what should happen if someone wanted to firelink multiple weapons like placing a half-dozen hand lasers together into a single weapon, as in should the damage simply be multiplied or should some other affect apply.

Nightmask wrote:No contradictions in anything I've said, when one is discussing how things are in general then you don't care about the exceptions because they're exceptions meaning they obviously violate the basic rule that you're discussing. Those things ARE exceptions because lasers do not ALWAYS suffer reduced damage against everything only against things that are laser-resistant meaning they're EXCEPTIONS i.e. things that violate the normal rules. The fact that there are a number of exceptions around doesn't mean the actual rule no longer exists or that the exceptions are the rule they aren't.

Importantly, the exceptions are also rare. How often do you actually face laser-resistant armor? If 2 things are functionally identical 99% of the time they are used, the 1% of the time that one is superior is really an indicator of how similar they are, not how different!

Nightmask wrote:No, that's 100% right and with how the game is written by the rules, in general, all weapons deal their damage to all armor the same no matter what kind of damaging effect they have nor is bringing up the hand weapons issue a non-point/red herring but points that refute what YOU brought up trying to argue that somehow hand weapons should be unable to harm the large vehicles like tanks because you think that they shouldn't be able to because RL SDC hand-guns can't damage an RL SDC tank. What's in contention is what should happen if someone wanted to firelink multiple weapons like placing a half-dozen hand lasers together into a single weapon, as in should the damage simply be multiplied or should some other affect apply.

Wait... are you trying to take us back to the original purpose of the thread???

Dirty pool, old man, dirty pool.

Well, as far as differences between weapons, you aren't going to find much as far as damage goes in the majority of RPGs because health or damage capacity is all more or less abstract.

The large difference between a laser and a rail gun in rifts is fluff, then ammunition, then accuracy. Partially because of bursting rules, partially because of the WP that applies.

However, I listed fluff first because solid rounds vs energy rounds seems like the biggest difference.

eliakon wrote:Those though ARE the exceptions though not the rules.
In most cases it doesn't matter what the source of damage is in combat, just that you did X Damage and if the target has More or Less than X DC.
In a few cases (almost always involving magic, super powers, or the supernatural) it may be relevant to determine if you did X damage in the first place by figuring out weapon was used to do the damage.

An exception though is something that shouldn't otherwise happen; in the case of a Glitterboys' armour, it will always cut the damage of lasers in half; an exception to this would be a non-VAFL doing full damage, because it was somehow already the frequency of the armour. That is an exception; a VAFL is an amendment to the rule, making it the new rule. That's why these are not exceptions, but rather the rule.

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

I am going to have to agree with Nightmask on that one, its all abstracted into "DC" after a certain point.

You can agree with him, but that does not make either of you correct in this instance.

The crux of his argument is that "MD is always MD". But the thing is that there are plenty of instances where it's not, and on a "this is the rule" basis here. For example, an MD laser does not deal MD on an SDC world, but an SD laser will always deal SD. But even then, an SD silver bullet will deal HP to a vampire on a MDC world. Meanwhile, a silver MD bullet will also deal HP to a vampire on a MDC world.

Why bother mentioning this? Because items and their properties - who or what they affect and how, has always been on a case-by-case basis. If this game were pokemon, most weapons would have the "normal" type, but then at least we'd have a full reference in how they will react all the time. But because of how the rules are laid out, it only appears that in some instances are there exceptions. But the fact of the matter is that there aren't; it's merely perception.

I'll do this quick here;

cosmicfish wrote:More, apparently, because I find the "general differences" you've listed to be meaningless.

Opinion, not fact.

cosmicfish wrote:The fact that I can get plasma grenades is only really of importance when I am buying grenades, not when I am comparing energy weapons.

Opinion, not fact.

cosmicfish wrote:The fact that weapons are listed as ion, or laser, or PB, or death ray doesn't matter unless those translate into game effects that are reasonably consistent with the type AND come up more than once in a blue moon.

Opinion, not fact.

cosmicfish wrote:That in-game manufacturers specialize in one or the other is meaningless if (despite the different technology) I can find comparable weapons at each one - it is no more different than saying that one manufacturer always puts handles on top while the other manufacturer never does.

Opinion, not fact.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That is, they are vague. Dragging in HU conversioned powers, you'll note that plasma in-fact has all sorts of different properties within the realm of Rifts, as do lasers.

And do those properties explicitly apply to Rifts plasma weapons? If I pick up a plasma rifle, do I get to use the "HU conversioned powers" as the basis for my weapon's operation?

I have no idea how you pulled, "do I get super-powers from my weapon?" out of "plasma has properties noted in HU powers, which are applicable in Rifts".
You're going to have to rephrase your question here, because you are not making any sense.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:This is kind of the point I'm digging at. The differences have been noted and they are notable, but we aren't being given the whole picture; it's been poorly elaborated on.

"Poorly elaborated on" to me implies that back at Palladium HQ there is a list of rules and guidelines that significantly impact game play as it pertains to these types of weapons.

From the mouth of KS himself - he house-rules his own game, which says to me that there is junk that should have been included but was not. And it looks like more than a conspiracy due to the fact that some weapons have more elaboration than others, and yet they are still distinct enough from each-other.

cosmicfish wrote:It is my opinion that no real such guidelines exist, because I do not see any real evidence of them.

That's fine I suppose; we can't all be observant of everything all of the time.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:One has nothing to do with the other. If you cannot provide a book and page number, then withdraw your claim or be more clear that you're giving your opinion instead of trying to assert it as a fact.

I am giving a recollection. Take it as you will. Dispute it, ignore it, call it names. I have better things to do than satisfy your demand that everything I state be documented and notarized.

It would have been quicker to just say, "I won't back up any of my claims with actual evidence", but whatever - you choose your own words.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:That's cool I suppose. It really is easier then to just post conjecture than to bother to look up what you're talking about

Yes, it is. That's the point.

Thanks bud. Now I and everyone else knows your M.O.

I'll be sure to post this statement of yours every time I come across your posts. I mean, it's not like myself and others who are invested in this particular product deserve the respect afforded to even the greenest of posters Which you may be thinking, "you in particular do not deserve respect", but the thing of it is that, despite my prickly and sometimes caustic approach to some posters, at least I'll back up my assertions with facts and admit fault when I'm wrong.

cosmicfish wrote:I suppose I could do a thesis on the inner workings of Palladium Games, but I already have a thesis to work on and I'm just not interested in taking on the side project of sorting through all that undocumented, unindexed material to satisfy a guy on a forum.

Your alleged thesis is just a little off-topic to be talking about in this section of the forums, bud.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you have a book and page reference, employee identification card from Palladium, a former staff-members' tell-all book, or any form of proof in regards to this claim? Or is this more conjecture, or possibly just your opinion that you've failed to clearly identify as such?

Recollection, and opinion.

cosmicfish wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:Do you happen to have a book or something (I'd accept even an article from your family newspaper at this point) detailing your own twoish decade experience authoring rpgs or any other comparative experience regarding your self-assured expertise on the matter? Or is this more opinion/conjecture?

I never claimed experience authoring RPG's, and unless you think I am also a "bunch of authors" I cannot see why you would think I had.

Because you post like you're an authority on the matter; really I had a decent hunch that you weren't, but I just wanted you to say as much.

cosmicfish wrote:The decades and authors are Palladium's own. As to my own professional experience, since it isn't in RPG design it is also exactly the kind of thing I don't want to show here. And if I am not going to post my CV here, are you going to take anything I say as meaningful?

You're responding like you didn't read all of my post; I gave you a tip at the end that you should've just followed. Stick to facts and label your opinion.

cosmicfish wrote:I doubt it. If we had any shared experience (like the "color of the shooting house door in Hereford") then I could exchange familiarities with you, but unless you have either military or engineering experience that is doubtful.

I own a copy of Saving Private Ryan and some Lego I could post a picture of.

But that really isn't what I was driving at; you make it sound like you have experience of this particular matter, but you cannot/will not post any facts in this regard. What I was doing is pointing out that you did not make a credible post.

cosmicfish wrote:I don't think we can or should post links to other game designer's fora on here, but if you search GURPS forums for Kromm, post 1451037, you should see him say:

Not to mention that after 17 years as an editor for an RPG publisher, I can say with total confidence that it's an utter myth that all RPG writers like rules and/or are good at navigating them. The majority are fond of specific areas of real-world erudition and want to bring those to their hobby, gaming. They strive to translate what they know into rules terms. The reason why I have a full time job and a full-time assistant is that many, even most of these people require a rules expert to hash out stats and mechanics to go with their material. Thus, it isn't surprising at all that the only freelancers who actively like designing vehicles are those interested in vehicles in their own right . . . and that the rest often find such design to be painful.

Ultimately, I'm saying that RPG writers are writers, not accountants. They're mostly drawn from the side of the hobby that enjoys drama, history, and fine turns of phrase. Certainly, there are numbers geeks-turned-pro, but they constitute a minority of the professionals in this business.

And how easy will it be to actually identify that he is who he says he is?
Putting that thought aside for a moment;

cosmicfish wrote:and that is for one of the crunchiest, rules-heavy games in existence. It is talking specifically about creating design rules for vehicles which, not incidentally, also includes design rules for weapons. Is that adequate? Sean Punch is not likely to participate on here personally, sorry.

Sure; I said I'd accept even an article published in your family newspaper, so I suppose a pseudo-link and a reasonable assessment of another game for reference is a step up. Picking that thought up again; I'm just giving you the gears here because having to deal with any and everyone throwing about unsupported claims is tiresome; too much so for me not to have at least a little fun with them.

cosmicfish wrote:Oh hey, what about those examples I gave? What rules or structure explains those, along with the other various energy weapons in Rifts? I am genuinely curious, I like systems for designing things, it is why I became an engineer, and RPG's like Rifts and GURPS were influential in the specialty I chose.

I am assuming you mean these:

cosmicfish wrote:There are also numerous examples where larger, heavier weapons DON'T do more damage, or do slightly more damage despite being massively larger. For example:
The NG-101 railgun does 6d6MD (max 36, avg 21) to 4000 ft, and weighs (total) 208lb plus 25lb per 300 round belt.
The NG-202 railgun does 1d4x10MD (max 40, avg 25) to 4000 ft, and weighs (total) 298lb plus 35lb per 300 round belt.
That is an 11-19% damage increase for a 43% mass increase... unless you look at the per round damage, which is actually identical. Bigger gun, same damage.

Though the differences are minor, the larger gun here is still doing more damage.

But that isn't what the comparison was of; these are for PA or heavier. Compared to infantry weapons on the NG line, it is notable that they do more damage.

Part of the "poor elaboration" on Palladiums' part though is in regards to this. You've noted how much larger and heavier these weapons are with the slightest of increases in their effect; throw in the NG-404 for comparison and you'd swear the thing is shooting scrap-metal encased in balsawood. But how the weapon is described, who its designed for; it alludes to their being some better perimeters on things like range and damage, but there aren't.

cosmicfish wrote:On the old Triax X-5000 Devastator we are presented with the TX-5001 "super ion cannon" which is at least 20ft long and does 2d4x10MD out to 4000', while the "ion belly gun turret" on the same robot, a ball turret maybe 3ft across, does 1d4x10MD out to 4000'. The apparent difference in volume of the actual weapons appear to be three orders of magnitude apart (approximately) and yet the difference in damage is only twice. The Devastator would be better off just replacing the enormous gun with a quad turret.

This is my point; this is what I've been noting. The writers write as if such weapons are better, and from an in-game perspective, the engineers and designers of these weapons are not trying to make cartoony guns. It's the mechanics that are failing both of them; that's where the problem lies here. That's why I've been pointing out that there must be additional qualities to these things that are not being printed - everything points to this, it's just a poor elaboration on what the actual differences might be.

Dog_O_War wrote:

eliakon wrote:Those though ARE the exceptions though not the rules.
In most cases it doesn't matter what the source of damage is in combat, just that you did X Damage and if the target has More or Less than X DC.
In a few cases (almost always involving magic, super powers, or the supernatural) it may be relevant to determine if you did X damage in the first place by figuring out weapon was used to do the damage.

An exception though is something that shouldn't otherwise happen; in the case of a Glitterboys' armour, it will always cut the damage of lasers in half; an exception to this would be a non-VAFL doing full damage, because it was somehow already the frequency of the armour. That is an exception; a VAFL is an amendment to the rule, making it the new rule. That's why these are not exceptions, but rather the rule.

No, the rule is that the laser does X amount of damage to whatever it hits, which is why Glitterboy armor is an EXCEPTION because it cuts the damage in half. GB armor is NOT a rule it is an EXCEPTION to the rule.

Dog_O_War wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

I am going to have to agree with Nightmask on that one, its all abstracted into "DC" after a certain point.

You can agree with him, but that does not make either of you correct in this instance.

The crux of his argument is that "MD is always MD". But the thing is that there are plenty of instances where it's not, and on a "this is the rule" basis here. For example, an MD laser does not deal MD on an SDC world, but an SD laser will always deal SD. But even then, an SD silver bullet will deal HP to a vampire on a MDC world. Meanwhile, a silver MD bullet will also deal HP to a vampire on a MDC world.

Why bother mentioning this? Because items and their properties - who or what they affect and how, has always been on a case-by-case basis. If this game were pokemon, most weapons would have the "normal" type, but then at least we'd have a full reference in how they will react all the time. But because of how the rules are laid out, it only appears that in some instances are there exceptions. But the fact of the matter is that there aren't; it's merely perception.

No, they're exceptions, it's your perceptions that are wrong. The game has never been on a 'case-by-case basis' when it comes to combat and damage dealt. A mega-damage weapon, in general, deals mega-damage equally to all things save when an exception (like a mega-damage laser against a Glitterboy's armor) comes up.

Dog_O_War wrote:

cosmicfish wrote:The fact that I can get plasma grenades is only really of importance when I am buying grenades, not when I am comparing energy weapons.

Opinion, not fact.

No that's a fact, grenades aren't energy weapons they're explosives and when you're comparing energy weapons you compare energy weapons to other energy weapons and grenades aren't in that category.

Nightmask wrote:No contradictions in anything I've said, when one is discussing how things are in general then you don't care about the exceptions because they're exceptions meaning they obviously violate the basic rule that you're discussing.

You're assuming you know what an exception is here.

But it's obvious that you don't. It's not exceptional that lasers do half-damage to Glitterboys; it's a rule. This will always be the case; doing full damage with a laser that isn't VAF would be an exception. That is an example of such - what you keep trying to sell as exceptions aren't.

That is why you're contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next.

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:That man-portable mega-damage hand laser is not going to find tank armor somehow different than the body armor some mook is wearing, the tank armor will suffer full damage from the hand laser just like the body armor would because by the time of Rifts technology has advanced to the point that even hand weapons can damage armored vehicles like tanks or robot vehicles.

Firstly, that's 100% wrong.

That armour "some mook" is wearing? in an equal amount of MDC, the laser has a much harder time burning through it on a per-inch basis, which is quantifiable, measurable, and thus a qualitative property of one armour versus another. This means that per the RAW, even though the damage the weapon deals is the same, the material it strikes at the very least is different in quality. And some weapons will have an easier time than others with certain materials; that's a fact.

Secondly, whether or not hand weapons can damage tanks has never been a point of contention; stop bringing up this non-point/red-herring of a statement. What is in contention is that larger weaponry is not otherwise to-scale and is thus breaking the verisimilitude of the game presented.

No, that's 100% right and with how the game is written by the rules, in general, all weapons deal their damage to all armor the same no matter what kind of damaging effect they have nor is bringing up the hand weapons issue a non-point/red herring but points that refute what YOU brought up trying to argue that somehow hand weapons should be unable to harm the large vehicles like tanks

Allow me to stop you there.
I never stated that "hand weapons should be unable to harm the large vehicles like tanks"
You keep bringing up a point I never made or said; you're putting words in my mouth here, which is against the board code of conduct. Correct this please.

Nightmask wrote:No, the rule is that the laser does X amount of damage to whatever it hits, which is why Glitterboy armor is an EXCEPTION because it cuts the damage in half. GB armor is NOT a rule it is an EXCEPTION to the rule.

So I'm going to post two definitions here, and you tell me which the GB armours' property falls under, given that this has been the case for it since the dawn of time.

Dictionary.com wrote:Exception
1. the act of excepting or the fact of being excepted.
2. something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.
3. an adverse criticism, especially on a particular point; opposition of opinion; objection; demurral:

Amendment
1. the act of amending or the state of being amended.
2. an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill, constitution, etc.
3. a change made by correction, addition, or deletion:

Or if you prefer; your statement above, "GB armor is NOT a rule it is an EXCEPTION to the rule." fails when I ask you this question, "so then lasers NORMALLY do full damage to GB armour?" If the answer is "no", and is consistently and continuously "no", then it would not be an exception that lasers do half-damage to GB armour.

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

cosmicfish wrote:The fact that I can get plasma grenades is only really of importance when I am buying grenades, not when I am comparing energy weapons.

Opinion, not fact.

No that's a fact, grenades aren't energy weapons they're explosives

Opinion, not fact.

And on a side note: that's not even 100% true by the definition of grenade.

Def: Grenade

Wikipedia: A grenade is a small explosive device which is thrown at its target.

vocabulary.com: a small explosive bomb thrown by hand or fired from a missile.

dictionary.reference.com: noun
1.
a small shell containing an explosive and thrown by hand or fired from a rifle or launching device.
2.
a similar missile containing a chemical, as for dispersing tear gas or fire-extinguishing substances.
-----
Now wouldn't the rule about GB armor and lasers be reflected in the second definition of exception, (2. something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.) being as it is a case of not conforming to the general rule?
I ask because I have in fact become confused by the various walls of text being thrown around here.

1stTimeGM wrote: -----
Now wouldn't the rule about GB armor and lasers be reflected in the second definition of exception, (2. something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule.) being as it is a case of not conforming to the general rule?
I ask because I have in fact become confused by the various walls of text being thrown around here.

First, say you have a laser that is listed as doing 1d6 MD.

That's it profile; whether or not it will actually do that damage is not a hard and fast "rule". You roll your damage, and then apply modifiers.

That's the rule. If there are no modifiers, then you deal whatever it is you rolled. If there are modifiers, then you modify the damage as per the effect, and then you do damage.

But if you're looking for a general rule which states, "unless exceptional circumstances, 1d6 MD lasers ALWAYS do 1d6 MD", well you're not going to find that.

Anywhere. Which seems to be lost on Nightmask.

I'm afraid to even mention that critical damage isn't an exception to him, given that it always takes place when a critical happens.

I think when we've reached the point where we are arguing over definitions of words like exception and grenade, we've reached the end of anything useful here - Locked.