Forums of the Megaverse®

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:And yet the regional powers don't take advantage of this phenomenon when manufacturing weapons for their own forces?

This is where I think it's damaging to the setting.

You know, there might be an expense issue for why they don't put these multiple-paired weapons into vehicles or power armor. It might require too much expense to built in the robust power systems required to fire say a dozen of the same laser rifle at once as a mounted Gatling Gun. Too much cost building in the extra power supplies and the like compared to just fielding more troops since one hit and your super-dozen Gatling laser is gone but your dozen single-armed guys only lost two guys leaving ten still attacking. Too many eggs in one basket. So it works for small mercenary groups because they need the concentrated firepower but larger groups and militaries are better off the conventional way.

Ooh, that just got me thinking about a new gun. 6 Wilks 457 Pulse Laser Rifles linked together gatling gun style and all six are set to pulse mode.

Cost? Maybe.

Though more likely they just come up with a newer weapon designed for the platform.

Palladium links guns, and often, for more damage. Double barreled guns on vehicles are pretty common. Though they sometimes have this nonsense where it says you can only fire one or the other. Honestly, if they're not giving either a mechanical effect other than damage (range in some cases, I'll admit) why even have two different weapons on the same turret unless you plan to let then fire simultaneously.

Alrik Vas wrote:Cost? Maybe.

Though more likely they just come up with a newer weapon designed for the platform.

Palladium links guns, and often, for more damage. Double barreled guns on vehicles are pretty common. Though they sometimes have this nonsense where it says you can only fire one or the other. Honestly, if they're not giving either a mechanical effect other than damage (range in some cases, I'll admit) why even have two different weapons on the same turret unless you plan to let then fire simultaneously.

There was a suit of power armor from Dimension Book 2: Phase World (depicted on the cover of Dimension Book 3: Phase World Sourcebook) called the Silverhawk Attack Exoskelton that had a triple barreled gun called the Multi-Rifle that had a HI-Laser, a particle beam, and a grenade launcher and you could fire the laser and particle beam together for a close approximation of the damage that both weapons could have done on their own.

dragonfett wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Cost? Maybe.

Though more likely they just come up with a newer weapon designed for the platform.

Palladium links guns, and often, for more damage. Double barreled guns on vehicles are pretty common. Though they sometimes have this nonsense where it says you can only fire one or the other. Honestly, if they're not giving either a mechanical effect other than damage (range in some cases, I'll admit) why even have two different weapons on the same turret unless you plan to let then fire simultaneously.

There was a suit of power armor from Dimension Book 2: Phase World (depicted on the cover of Dimension Book 3: Phase World Sourcebook) called the Silverhawk Attack Exoskelton that had a triple barreled gun called the Multi-Rifle that had a HI-Laser, a particle beam, and a grenade launcher and you could fire the laser and particle beam together for a close approximation of the damage that both weapons could have done on their own.

Of course considering that the Silverhawk is quite possibly one of the most insanely powerful suits of power armor ever built this doesn't answer the question of if this is proof that this is something you should do more often because its logical or something you should do less often because its overpowered.

dragonfett wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:And yet the regional powers don't take advantage of this phenomenon when manufacturing weapons for their own forces?

This is where I think it's damaging to the setting.

You know, there might be an expense issue for why they don't put these multiple-paired weapons into vehicles or power armor. It might require too much expense to built in the robust power systems required to fire say a dozen of the same laser rifle at once as a mounted Gatling Gun. Too much cost building in the extra power supplies and the like compared to just fielding more troops since one hit and your super-dozen Gatling laser is gone but your dozen single-armed guys only lost two guys leaving ten still attacking. Too many eggs in one basket. So it works for small mercenary groups because they need the concentrated firepower but larger groups and militaries are better off the conventional way.

Ooh, that just got me thinking about a new gun. 6 Wilks 457 Pulse Laser Rifles linked together gatling gun style and all six are set to pulse mode.

One of the Glitter Boy variants in South America has if memory serves a Gatling-style laser as one of its weapons (although it's been long enough I might be remembering a different GB variant).

The GB-7 has a multi-barreled railgun, but it shoots a burst of individual flechettes instead of the GB-10's larger canister round. Damage ultimately works out the same as approximately 200 flechettes are fired at the target, the delivery method is just slightly different.

Jefffar wrote:The GB-7 has a multi-barreled railgun, but it shoots a burst of individual flechettes instead of the GB-10's larger canister round. Damage ultimately works out the same as approximately 200 flechettes are fired at the target, the delivery method is just slightly different.

Right, it was the railgun not the laser on the BG-7 that was Gatling style. Should have trusted my first instinct that it was the Railgun and not the laser. I remember the idea was one relatively short-range weapon that did the same damage as the Boomgun and one that had the range of the Boomgun but not the damage.

dragonfett wrote:If TW weapons DID require diamonds/emeralds to hold the charges, a 5th level Techno-Wizard would be taking a -18% to -32% penalty to just to make the TW guns from the RUE which would drop his base percentage to build it from 88% down to 56% to 70%.

Yes. I believe the penalty is -1% per point of PPE. Though that could be offset by one of the bonuses. In general, I imagine a TW would first prototype the design without PPE storage until it falls under the "proven, working..." category. Then the next iteration would add in the PPE storage.

dragonfett wrote:Furthermore, it also raises the P.P.E. Construction Cost, which also increases the P.P.E. Activation Cost, which would increase the amount of P.P.E. you would need to store, which would increase the P.P.E. Construction cost, which... well you can see where this is going right?

Ah, yes. I assume you're referring to the buried tidbit on p131, under item 10, that says storing PPE adds 1% to the PPE Construction Cost per point. You're correct that it makes a circular reference. I chalked that up to bad editing and ignore it. Given the number of other errors throughout the TW section (such as the examples not following the rules) I'm convinced that no one at PB actually modeled the formulas. I suspect that 1% penalty was tacked on without realizing the circular error. Your mileage my vary. ::shrug::

KS has always been a good idea / concept writer, but struggles with technical details.

say652 wrote:NG Heavy Plasma Cannon over a Grenade Launcher was always a dream weapon.
I guess for additional fire power I would add a Silver plated Vibro Bayonet and a Forcefield Generator in the stock.

... Cuz a bayonet somehow adds to firepower?

Mack wrote:

dragonfett wrote:If TW weapons DID require diamonds/emeralds to hold the charges, a 5th level Techno-Wizard would be taking a -18% to -32% penalty to just to make the TW guns from the RUE which would drop his base percentage to build it from 88% down to 56% to 70%.

Yes. I believe the penalty is -1% per point of PPE. Though that could be offset by one of the bonuses. In general, I imagine a TW would first prototype the design without PPE storage until it falls under the "proven, working..." category. Then the next iteration would add in the PPE storage.

dragonfett wrote:Furthermore, it also raises the P.P.E. Construction Cost, which also increases the P.P.E. Activation Cost, which would increase the amount of P.P.E. you would need to store, which would increase the P.P.E. Construction cost, which... well you can see where this is going right?

Ah, yes. I assume you're referring to the buried tidbit on p131, under item 10, that says storing PPE adds 1% to the PPE Construction Cost per point. You're correct that it makes a circular reference. I chalked that up to bad editing and ignore it. Given the number of other errors throughout the TW section (such as the examples not following the rules) I'm convinced that no one at PB actually modeled the formulas. I suspect that 1% penalty was tacked on without realizing the circular error. Your mileage my vary. ::shrug::

KS has always been a good idea / concept writer, but struggles with technical details.

The whole problem of working on a design until it becomes accepted as a "proven and working" design then adding in PPE storage is that would become a prototype design again. Sure, a GM could house rule that since it's adding onto a proven design, the penalty for creating a prototype can be less than what is RAW. However that relies on the individual GM (and if they like TW stuff, because I know that there are some out there that either nerf the TW creation system, or straight up don't allow a TW to make TW items).

And again to the second part of your post, that would rely on a GM's house rules. I agree with you on that point, but it still relies on GM house rules.

dragonfett wrote:And again to the second part of your post, that would rely on a GM's house rules. I agree with you on that point, but it still relies on GM house rules.

This is true even if you're trying to follow the RUE creation rules to the letter. TW creation is always dependent on the GM.

Personally, I believe that multiple guns fire-linked would simply add the damages together. Examples:
CWC p.170, Warbird Rocket Cycle, rail guns
CWC p.172, Windjammer Skycycle, rail guns
Underseas p.199, X-6000 Submarine, nose lasers and rail guns

And there are many more examples scattered throughout the world books. If a GM refused to allow my Operator to firelink weapons, he should have a better reason than "Because I said so." There's just too much precedent.

wyrmraker wrote:Personally, I believe that multiple guns fire-linked would simply add the damages together. Examples:
CWC p.170, Warbird Rocket Cycle, rail guns
CWC p.172, Windjammer Skycycle, rail guns
Underseas p.199, X-6000 Submarine, nose lasers and rail guns

And there are many more examples scattered throughout the world books. If a GM refused to allow my Operator to firelink weapons, he should have a better reason than "Because I said so." There's just too much precedent.

If it hurts the game, ignore the precedent. I see that as a group consensus thing, but ultimately it's the GM's call.

wyrmraker wrote:Personally, I believe that multiple guns fire-linked would simply add the damages together. Examples:
CWC p.170, Warbird Rocket Cycle, rail guns
CWC p.172, Windjammer Skycycle, rail guns
Underseas p.199, X-6000 Submarine, nose lasers and rail guns

And there are many more examples scattered throughout the world books. If a GM refused to allow my Operator to firelink weapons, he should have a better reason than "Because I said so." There's just too much precedent.

The answer I use when I refuse fire-links that are over powered are "Sorry that is game breaking. Breaking the game is bad. Therefore no. However, we could probably work out something less overpowering that will work, want to talk about it?"

It's pretty easy to stop people from doing this without restricting it from a meta standpoint. Skill and materials can be hard to come by. Also, finding situations where you can field a weapon can be problematic. Time is another pain as many adventures aren't paced for modding gear.

Though there's nothing wrong with telling a player their ideas are unbalanced with the game. However I prefer to give them what they want if they can achieve it.

Alrik Vas wrote:It's pretty easy to stop people from doing this without restricting it from a meta standpoint. Skill and materials can be hard to come by. Also, finding situations where you can field a weapon can be problematic. Time is another pain as many adventures aren't paced for modding gear.

Though there's nothing wrong with telling a player their ideas are unbalanced with the game. However I prefer to give them what they want if they can achieve it.

Skill isn't hard to come by at all....
...since almost invariably the people that want to do this are the ones with the skill.

Limiting materials to me ends up being just as artificial as the meta though. Its just seems as artificial to claim "nope, no one in the entire multiverse has the materials needed to let you make a combi-gun"

wyrmraker wrote:Personally, I believe that multiple guns fire-linked would simply add the damages together. Examples:
CWC p.170, Warbird Rocket Cycle, rail guns
CWC p.172, Windjammer Skycycle, rail guns
Underseas p.199, X-6000 Submarine, nose lasers and rail guns

And there are many more examples scattered throughout the world books. If a GM refused to allow my Operator to firelink weapons, he should have a better reason than "Because I said so." There's just too much precedent.

My response would be. "Yes, you're correct, those items don't fall in line with my ruling or an understanding of the realistic effects of multiple barrelled and salvo firing weapons. I'll adjust the stats on those after the session. Thank you for drawing them to my attention."

eliakon wrote:Skill isn't hard to come by at all....
...since almost invariably the people that want to do this are the ones with the skill.

Limiting materials to me ends up being just as artificial as the meta though. Its just seems as artificial to claim "nope, no one in the entire multiverse has the materials needed to let you make a combi-gun"

But you don't have to artificially limit anything.

Ok, what weapons? Are they available in the area? Do they need to write code for their weapon system computer? Do they have a shop, the tools, the time?

If the answer is yes and they succeed on their skill checks, then the GM determines how there linked weapons interact.

If you have come across players who are willing to take time off of whatever busy job they're on to tinker, they are telling you they can deal with the consequences both good and bad.

Jefffar wrote:

wyrmraker wrote:Personally, I believe that multiple guns fire-linked would simply add the damages together. Examples:
CWC p.170, Warbird Rocket Cycle, rail guns
CWC p.172, Windjammer Skycycle, rail guns
Underseas p.199, X-6000 Submarine, nose lasers and rail guns

And there are many more examples scattered throughout the world books. If a GM refused to allow my Operator to firelink weapons, he should have a better reason than "Because I said so." There's just too much precedent.

My response would be. "Yes, you're correct, those items don't fall in line with my ruling or an understanding of the realistic effects of multiple barrelled and salvo firing weapons. I'll adjust the stats on those after the session. Thank you for drawing them to my attention."

As a person who likes to play Operators, Techno-Wizards, Psi-Teks, and other brainy, inventive types, I would accept that quite reasonable response.

Granted, as a player, I usually wouldn't propose something game breaking unless the GM ticked me off first. If told by a reasonable, cooperative GM that my invention was game breaking, I would be more than willing to work with the GM on the subject matter.

Alrik Vas wrote:

eliakon wrote:Skill isn't hard to come by at all....
...since almost invariably the people that want to do this are the ones with the skill.

Limiting materials to me ends up being just as artificial as the meta though. Its just seems as artificial to claim "nope, no one in the entire multiverse has the materials needed to let you make a combi-gun"

But you don't have to artificially limit anything.

Ok, what weapons? Are they available in the area? Do they need to write code for their weapon system computer? Do they have a shop, the tools, the time?

If the answer is yes and they succeed on their skill checks, then the GM determines how there linked weapons interact.

If you have come across players who are willing to take time off of whatever busy job they're on to tinker, they are telling you they can deal with the consequences both good and bad.

This sounds like sophistry to me.
The most common attempted munch that people try in my games is to take 2-4 rifles and make a combi-weapon (usually for their power armor to carry)
But lets looking at your questions
-Of course the weapons are available in the area, by definition that is going to be needed to start the issue...
-Unless the GM has made up some house rule about weapons computers and code...RAW no, no weapon needs special coding of any sort at all. Period. This is why you can swap out weapons with simple rolls....
-A shop and tools comes back to arbitrary limitations. Either I am going to have to make something up to prevent them from being able to buy the canon tool set that is sold to do these exact very tasks....or there is not a limit here either
-Taking a bit of time to work on a weapon does nothing what so ever to tell you that they are willing (let alone able) to deal with the consequences of their actions. Just that they are willing to "spend the 2d4 days of time per skill roll right?"

The idea that PCs should some how dictate how the game works, and what should or should not be overpowered is, frankly ludicrous.
I find it especially ironic because the exact same players who routinely petition me to build bigger and deadlier combi-guns are the first ones to complain if the enemy deploys equipment more effective than the book stats. >_<

I guess I don't game with a bunch of power-hungry complainers?

It seems like sophistry to you, I think, because of your experiences and expectations. You've said before that you allow a lot of crazy things to players who prove to you that they either won't abuse it or can handle it in a way you approve of. Yet is it your general point of view to never allow this sort of thing if it's their first gaming experience with you?

A lot seems to depend on your personal take, and I think that's where it gets a bit wrong. yes, above board, as in real life logic, the group spending 2d4 days on gear improvement doesn't directly relate to them accepting consequences...but it's simple, not subtle or overly complicated (as in, not sophistry) to see that spending 2-8 days tinkering will allow the opposition to progress as well.

Having a shop and tools isn't arbitrary either. The players can have these things, they're purchasable. Yet are they in a location where they can by them and do they have the time to use them? I don't think these are ridiculous things to look at when planning modifications. You need to set the time aside, you need a location and materials. If you can't get these things, or decide not to put in the effort, or will not willingly sacrifice time to do it, then it can't happen. That has absolutely nothing with the GM arbitrarily deciding they can or cannot. The players can do what they want, all we do as GMs is try to guide them from time to time and present opportunities.

Alrik Vas wrote:I guess I don't game with a bunch of power-hungry complainers?

It seems like sophistry to you, I think, because of your experiences and expectations. You've said before that you allow a lot of crazy things to players who prove to you that they either won't abuse it or can handle it in a way you approve of. Yet is it your general point of view to never allow this sort of thing if it's their first gaming experience with you?

A lot seems to depend on your personal take, and I think that's where it gets a bit wrong. yes, above board, as in real life logic, the group spending 2d4 days on gear improvement doesn't directly relate to them accepting consequences...but it's simple, not subtle or overly complicated (as in, not sophistry) to see that spending 2-8 days tinkering will allow the opposition to progress as well.

Having a shop and tools isn't arbitrary either. The players can have these things, they're purchasable. Yet are they in a location where they can by them and do they have the time to use them? I don't think these are ridiculous things to look at when planning modifications. You need to set the time aside, you need a location and materials. If you can't get these things, or decide not to put in the effort, or will not willingly sacrifice time to do it, then it can't happen. That has absolutely nothing with the GM arbitrarily deciding they can or cannot. The players can do what they want, all we do as GMs is try to guide them from time to time and present opportunities.

This is why I said before that I as a GM reserve the right to say "No, what you are proposing doesn't sound like it will fit this game. Its to powerful for this game. Lets talk about something that will work."
I am not saying that "No you can never link any guns whatsoever" I am saying that "just because you glued four JA-12 rifles together you do not get to do 4d6x10+40 damage per shot." (or six, or ten or however many)

As for accesability of shops and tools, unless the GM is running a wilderness game or one where they are constantly making the PCs move and never be able to interact with society I literally can not see a reason that you would not be able to buy a commonly available supply in any of the many major towns and cities that dot the map. There are literally dozens of canon cities that have vendors and outlets, not to mention at least two mail order delivery services! One of which delivers to the wilderness. So yah...getting parts, tools, and a shop is just a matter of getting some credits.

Not to get too far off track, but who delivers to the wilderness, and how do they find you?

Aside that, it's really story pacing. If the game is about building an empire and improving technology or something, then yeah...days, weeks, months, years working on projects. If it's a race to beat the badguy's to the punch, not a lot of time, no, even in a city. Though honestly, why does a character need the skill when they can pawn it off to an NPC operator who does that kind of thing for a living?

Then the issue becomes, can you go pick it up before the bad guy rifts you to another dimension because you're too hard to kill

But yeah, a lot of players wouldn't want to put their PA in the shop, what if they get attacked, omg...fear.../shaking

Some players, let me tell ya. So glad I haven't gamed with that type in like...10 years.

flatline wrote:KillerCyborg's thread about connecting 2 weapons got me thinking about this, and it's not the first time (I, myself, posted the L-40 a while ago which was merely 2 L-20's mounted together in the same frame).

In real life, damage isn't linear. No amount of small arms can be rigged up to do damage like M1 Abrams main gun, yet if we mount 3 Kittanni pulse lasers to the same frame, we have, at worst, a 12lb rifle that does as more damage when bursting than the iconic Boom Gun.

If three people hit with the same target, the damage is additive, so if one person hits with three weapons, it's intuitive that the damage should still be additive, but it kind of ruins the setting if any weapon can, in multiples, achieve arbitrarily high damage levels.

Anyone have any thoughts on how this type of thing should be handled?

Me - I have a pretty clear method, both modified for my game and how the game actually handles it.

But first, I would like to point out that you're technically wrong about rigging up multiple weapons in real-life and the increased amount of damage they deal. If you look up the "one million round gun" (or whatever it is called) it fires a low-calibre round, albeit very quickly in rapid succession, for an observable increase in effect. It isn't quite up to a 105mm cannon in power, but it certainly puts to use the volume of rounds it lays out over a very short period of time.

Anyways, back on topic; the real problem with the ORK-SUPAKUSTOM-MASTA-BLASTA (re: a bunch of guns tied together on a single trigger) is that it shouldn't work as effectively as it does. But it's because Rifts has zero concept of penetration value. Against a target each of these guns should be effective against, there is no problem with slamming a bunch of rounds/lasers/blasts/kitchen sinks into a target and believing it will pulp them. The problem comes in however, when we realize that rifle-fire is bringing down tanks.

So the solution to this problem is to add an armour value to armour, to separate the peasant-coats you people wear from the hardened technological shell people like myself wear. To accompany this, you would also need to grade the weapons you and your ilk are wielding to correspond with what weapon can penetrate what armour.

This solves the problem.

Within the game as written, there are plenty of examples of this "two guns duct-tapped together" junk, like the door guns on a Mark-V, or the three gatling-style railguns on that one hoverbike. Really, if that's how the game wants to play it, well - I can do better. rigging up 5-10 JA-9s for example, gives you a reasonably light heavy laser weapon for your PA that does 2d6x10md at a range farther than most other guns. Or even just using C30-R railgun in a group of 6 on most any vehicle will net you a tactical advantage over nearly any and every other weapon.

This means that the game otherwise endorses the problem, however.

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.

And that works, Dog. I do it similarly in my own games. Though admittedly, from how the game describes mega-damage, it's difficult to use any kind of realism.

Alrik Vas wrote:And that works, Dog. I do it similarly in my own games. Though admittedly, from how the game describes mega-damage, it's difficult to use any kind of realism.

That's just one of the things that you kind of have to accept. But once you do, everything works out.

I also downscaled MDC (30 SDC to 1 MDC), but that was more of a personal choice. It works great though with AV and having bullets do a "per bullet" type damage.

Except you're talking about rifles that can actually damage tanks, it's not like RL where rifle rounds aren't really a problem for a tank the man-portable weapons in Rifts can actually damage tanks, even sidearms can inflict damage so if 10 guys with laser pistols can damage and eventually destroy a tank then one guy hooking together 10 guns so they can all fire at once at the same target should also be able to damage said tank and destroy it. Since 10 separate guys can hit using the same model of weapon and all the damage stack why then shouldn't the same thing occur with one guy shooting a combo weapon that fires 10 of those at once at the same target?

I got rid of MD and added a damage absorption rating to things. If your rifle can't overcome the damage absorption rating of the target, then no matter how many are connected to the trigger, you won't do damage.

But at that point, it's basically a different game.

well I know I modeled a version of the penetration factor sort of in what I was calling GDC (Gigadamage) for a crossover I was playing around with.

in my source however there was a quarky feature in that infantry with sidearms and light support weapons could potentially do damage to armored vehicles that should have been immune to their damage.

basically I used a mechanic for converting damage from that game that said that their heavy weapons were designed to penetrate their (virtually) indestructible armor so while using their weapons against their armor uses flat, and fixed damage for each weapon against their own armor. There is a "flaw" in their armor, its made up of lots of individual plates or "scales" so MDC weapons that do a 100 mdc hit will shatter a plate of armor 100% of the time (the chosen conversion factor) but I also provided a mechanic for them to have a "chance" to knock loose a plate of armor basically you use the damage done 1-99 mdc, and it has that percentage chance to take a plate off.

on the other side of things I used variable damage when they fired back... say 1d10*10 mdc/point of GFC the weapon did, with the lower damage implying "overpenetration" that didn't hit anything vital

on the other hand I personally have issues just strapping 2 or more guns together to make an uber weapon. on the other hand a tri-barreled or even quad- or more barreled shemarrian railgun would be a scary thing to behold in action.

I use the 1/2 and 1/3 method, where heavy armor takes 1/3, power armor takes 1/2 the damage. It's worked out really well.

It keeps mega-damage as the kill anything weapon type, just takes 3 times longer for pistol vs tank. Usually the guy with the pistol is dead waaay before he becomes a danger.

Nightmask wrote:Except you're talking about rifles that can actually damage tanks, it's not like RL where rifle rounds aren't really a problem for a tank the man-portable weapons in Rifts can actually damage tanks, even sidearms can inflict damage so if 10 guys with laser pistols can damage and eventually destroy a tank then one guy hooking together 10 guns so they can all fire at once at the same target should also be able to damage said tank and destroy it. Since 10 separate guys can hit using the same model of weapon and all the damage stack why then shouldn't the same thing occur with one guy shooting a combo weapon that fires 10 of those at once at the same target?

No, just... no.

I'm not talking about that garbage at all. I'm taking the stance that there are in-fact different qualities of weapons and the game as-is does not properly reflect this at all.

Unless that is, you really believe that things like the Death's Head Transport's top-mounted cannon, a gun with a six-foot wide barrel is really doing the 1 or 2d6x10 for the like 40 rounds it shoots (I don't remember the stats off-hand). Because those would have to be nerf boulders in order for that to be true.

I should point out that I'm in no way speaking about how MD weaponry interacts with SDC tanks.

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Except you're talking about rifles that can actually damage tanks, it's not like RL where rifle rounds aren't really a problem for a tank the man-portable weapons in Rifts can actually damage tanks, even sidearms can inflict damage so if 10 guys with laser pistols can damage and eventually destroy a tank then one guy hooking together 10 guns so they can all fire at once at the same target should also be able to damage said tank and destroy it. Since 10 separate guys can hit using the same model of weapon and all the damage stack why then shouldn't the same thing occur with one guy shooting a combo weapon that fires 10 of those at once at the same target?

No, just... no.

I'm not talking about that garbage at all. I'm taking the stance that there are in-fact different qualities of weapons and the game as-is does not properly reflect this at all.

Unless that is, you really believe that things like the Death's Head Transport's top-mounted cannon, a gun with a six-foot wide barrel is really doing the 1 or 2d6x10 for the like 40 rounds it shoots (I don't remember the stats off-hand). Because those would have to be nerf boulders in order for that to be true.

I should point out that I'm in no way speaking about how MD weaponry interacts with SDC tanks.

Mega-damage is mega-damage whether it's from a hand laser that deals 1d6 MD or a railgun that deals 1d6 MD, there is no 'different quality' where that 1d6 MD hand laser somehow isn't as damaging as the railgun or something else that deals mega-damage. That's the entire point of advancing your tech to the point you have such man-portable mega-damage weapons, so that they can damage and eventually destroy that MDC tank. Unlike SDC/HP level damage and armor mega-damage is just so incredible that there is no such thing as 'well that armor just ignores those hand lasers' because those hand lasers are just that good.

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Except you're talking about rifles that can actually damage tanks, it's not like RL where rifle rounds aren't really a problem for a tank the man-portable weapons in Rifts can actually damage tanks, even sidearms can inflict damage so if 10 guys with laser pistols can damage and eventually destroy a tank then one guy hooking together 10 guns so they can all fire at once at the same target should also be able to damage said tank and destroy it. Since 10 separate guys can hit using the same model of weapon and all the damage stack why then shouldn't the same thing occur with one guy shooting a combo weapon that fires 10 of those at once at the same target?

No, just... no.

I'm not talking about that garbage at all. I'm taking the stance that there are in-fact different qualities of weapons and the game as-is does not properly reflect this at all.

Unless that is, you really believe that things like the Death's Head Transport's top-mounted cannon, a gun with a six-foot wide barrel is really doing the 1 or 2d6x10 for the like 40 rounds it shoots (I don't remember the stats off-hand). Because those would have to be nerf boulders in order for that to be true.

I should point out that I'm in no way speaking about how MD weaponry interacts with SDC tanks.

Mega-damage is mega-damage whether it's from a hand laser that deals 1d6 MD or a railgun that deals 1d6 MD, there is no 'different quality' where that 1d6 MD hand laser somehow isn't as damaging as the railgun or something else that deals mega-damage. That's the entire point of advancing your tech to the point you have such man-portable mega-damage weapons, so that they can damage and eventually destroy that MDC tank. Unlike SDC/HP level damage and armor mega-damage is just so incredible that there is no such thing as 'well that armor just ignores those hand lasers' because those hand lasers are just that good.

Which is all well and good.....
right up until you start asking awkward questions like 'why do large weapons not scale up' or 'why do autofiring weapons burst damage drop off the higher the base damage of the initial shot' and one realizes that the claim that MD is somehow qualifiedly different and creates a new even footing for all damage is false and that it is just moar damage with a few special effects stacked on....and that it still follows game physics and not real world ones.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Dog_O_War wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Except you're talking about rifles that can actually damage tanks, it's not like RL where rifle rounds aren't really a problem for a tank the man-portable weapons in Rifts can actually damage tanks, even sidearms can inflict damage so if 10 guys with laser pistols can damage and eventually destroy a tank then one guy hooking together 10 guns so they can all fire at once at the same target should also be able to damage said tank and destroy it. Since 10 separate guys can hit using the same model of weapon and all the damage stack why then shouldn't the same thing occur with one guy shooting a combo weapon that fires 10 of those at once at the same target?

No, just... no.

I'm not talking about that garbage at all. I'm taking the stance that there are in-fact different qualities of weapons and the game as-is does not properly reflect this at all.

Unless that is, you really believe that things like the Death's Head Transport's top-mounted cannon, a gun with a six-foot wide barrel is really doing the 1 or 2d6x10 for the like 40 rounds it shoots (I don't remember the stats off-hand). Because those would have to be nerf boulders in order for that to be true.

I should point out that I'm in no way speaking about how MD weaponry interacts with SDC tanks.

Mega-damage is mega-damage whether it's from a hand laser that deals 1d6 MD or a railgun that deals 1d6 MD, there is no 'different quality' where that 1d6 MD hand laser somehow isn't as damaging as the railgun or something else that deals mega-damage. That's the entire point of advancing your tech to the point you have such man-portable mega-damage weapons, so that they can damage and eventually destroy that MDC tank. Unlike SDC/HP level damage and armor mega-damage is just so incredible that there is no such thing as 'well that armor just ignores those hand lasers' because those hand lasers are just that good.

Which is all well and good.....
right up until you start asking awkward questions like 'why do large weapons not scale up' or 'why do autofiring weapons burst damage drop off the higher the base damage of the initial shot' and one realizes that the claim that MD is somehow qualifiedly different and creates a new even footing for all damage is false and that it is just moar damage with a few special effects stacked on....and that it still follows game physics and not real world ones.

Well now we know that the problem of larger individual weapons not having the kind of damage you'd expect from them is a problem introduced by the writers for the books, often generates the question on here of 'why bother with larger robot vehicles when you get more from power armor?' as a result, and just one of the many contradictions in the game that we all come here to discuss and work out ways of dealing with it. However given how often the GB is treated as 'over-powered' because of its damage dealing and taking capacity you'd just see more complaint from people if those larger robot vehicles were all scaled up accordingly, because they'd be dealing at least as much damage as a GB if not more and able to take even greater punishment and you'd get the complaints about it being too easy for the bad guys with the larger vehicles to kill the PC before they can even have a chance to fight back.

Nightmask wrote:Mega-damage is mega-damage whether it's from a hand laser that deals 1d6 MD or a railgun that deals 1d6 MD, there is no 'different quality' where that 1d6 MD hand laser somehow isn't as damaging as the railgun or something else that deals mega-damage.

What an utterly useless statement. I quite plainly stated that the game does not reflect the fact that there are different qualities of weapons properly; and you're wrong big time even with your example. 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? Maybe because there is actually a difference that they never really elaborated on? And that's just damage across one category.

Nightmask wrote:That's the entire point of advancing your tech to the point you have such man-portable mega-damage weapons, so that they can damage and eventually destroy that MDC tank. Unlike SDC/HP level damage and armor mega-damage is just so incredible that there is no such thing as 'well that armor just ignores those hand lasers' because those hand lasers are just that good.

Oh, you're right. I completely forgot how we advanced the M16 so that it could destroy an Abrams in like 10 to 20 clips

Or rather, it's like you somehow think that armour doesn't also advance in an attempt to keep the most current and powerful weapons out there from destroying it.

But as an example; you can surf through the books and pick out vehicle worth 10 million, and I'll take a retrofitted GAW tank and drape suits of plastic-man body armour over it for cheaper and end up with a lighter vehicle that also has more MDC than whatever it is that you buy. And I get the benefit of dozens of G.I.Joe hits. Because that sure makes sense with your "all MDC is the same" mantra. 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.

Nightmask wrote:Well now we know that the problem of larger individual weapons not having the kind of damage you'd expect from them is a problem introduced by the writers for the books, often generates the question on here of 'why bother with larger robot vehicles when you get more from power armor?' as a result, and just one of the many contradictions in the game that we all come here to discuss and work out ways of dealing with it. However given how often the GB is treated as 'over-powered' because of its damage dealing and taking capacity you'd just see more complaint from people if those larger robot vehicles were all scaled up accordingly, because they'd be dealing at least as much damage as a GB if not more and able to take even greater punishment and you'd get the complaints about it being too easy for the bad guys with the larger vehicles to kill the PC before they can even have a chance to fight back.

Again, just... no.

All you're going on about here is that there is some sort of mystical scale the writers arbitrarily endorsed which keeps the damage from large robots and vehicles low.

This is not the case at all. There are plenty of examples of why this is not true within the fluff-text. That is the writers' work there. The mechanics on the other hand are due largely to the creator who refuses to officially change anything and even house-rules his own bloody game.

But besides this, it is definitely apparent when the easiest solution really is to create an AV/AP scale which separates infantry weapons from robot and tank weapons for everything to begin to seem realistic. All of a sudden that 1d6x10 cannon on that MBT is super-effective because only it can penetrate other heavy armours, or that CS sidearm that does a grand ol' 2d4 actually being a slick piece of weaponry because it's graded higher than some 100 year-old Wilk's lightgun.

Because as-is, the game is basically saying, "bundle these particular firearms together because they have the best stats, and don't ever use these other guns because they're worth less than pulped cactus-people", where as with this one simple tweak, almost all the fluff-text the writers penned makes sense, and the game takes on a whole new (and awesome) dimension.

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.

Tor wrote:I'd think it'd take some kinda expensive super-advanced software to fire these high-tech weapons in unison or else it'd always be an option.

Why? Give them electric triggers, you can fire them all at once within microseconds of each other with today's technology!

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:And yet the regional powers don't take advantage of this phenomenon when manufacturing weapons for their own forces?

This is where I think it's damaging to the setting.

You know, there might be an expense issue for why they don't put these multiple-paired weapons into vehicles or power armor. It might require too much expense to built in the robust power systems required to fire say a dozen of the same laser rifle at once as a mounted Gatling Gun. Too much cost building in the extra power supplies and the like compared to just fielding more troops since one hit and your super-dozen Gatling laser is gone but your dozen single-armed guys only lost two guys leaving ten still attacking. Too many eggs in one basket. So it works for small mercenary groups because they need the concentrated firepower but larger groups and militaries are better off the conventional way.

The cost to train and equip replacement soldiers in a professional military rapidly overwhelms the added expense of weapon-stacking under RAW. You would at least see stacked weapons as SAW's and MG's at the squad level, and certainly on vehicles.

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?

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.

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.

You can claim fun, which is relative, but claiming balance is...well, I don't think it's correct. What's balanced about the game in terms of technological weaponry? Especially vs armor.

Alrik Vas wrote:You can claim fun, which is relative, but claiming balance is...well, I don't think it's correct. What's balanced about the game in terms of technological weaponry? Especially vs armor.

The game was designed to balance combatants against each other - not completely, but enough so that "infantrymen vs tank" would be more evenly matched in the game than in any era of real life. Yes, this produces a lot of other in-balances, but that is why I said "balanced" and not balanced.

Haven't got the book handy, but while it's not Rifts doesn't Aliens Unlimited: Galaxy Guide for the ship-building rules have fire-linking of weapons, where the damage is additive at the expense of not being able to use the weapons against more than one target at a time?

cosmicfish wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:You can claim fun, which is relative, but claiming balance is...well, I don't think it's correct. What's balanced about the game in terms of technological weaponry? Especially vs armor.

The game was designed to balance combatants against each other - not completely, but enough so that "infantrymen vs tank" would be more evenly matched in the game than in any era of real life. Yes, this produces a lot of other in-balances, but that is why I said "balanced" and not balanced.

That's fine, I guess, but it doesn't add a lot of excitement for me. When you can take 3 hits from a rifle and be fine still, and many tank rounds do a little less than 3x rifle damage, that says I'm not in much danger.

Alrik Vas wrote:

cosmicfish wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:You can claim fun, which is relative, but claiming balance is...well, I don't think it's correct. What's balanced about the game in terms of technological weaponry? Especially vs armor.

The game was designed to balance combatants against each other - not completely, but enough so that "infantrymen vs tank" would be more evenly matched in the game than in any era of real life. Yes, this produces a lot of other in-balances, but that is why I said "balanced" and not balanced.

That's fine, I guess, but it doesn't add a lot of excitement for me. When you can take 3 hits from a rifle and be fine still, and many tank rounds do a little less than 3x rifle damage, that says I'm not in much danger.

Agreed 100%!

The problem with the 'rifles can damage tanks thing' is that in Rifts SDC rifles can damage SDC tanks so the same argument still applies.
I can take .22 pistol and with enough shots destroy the empire state building, or sink the USS Kitty Hawk because I depleted their SDC.

The exact same thing that is argued makes MDC broken applies to SDC. Its not that Mega damage is broken, its that the entire conception of the damage system is purely hit point based with no durability what so ever.

But its not fair to just pick on MDC weapons and MD armor and then make the disingenuous claim that they are the broken part of the system.

That's not really a problem with the argument as it is just an overall issue with damage capacity in general.

That's fine though, and also correct. Though we know that tracking damage capacity along with damage reduction for some reason isn't done in most rpgs...for whatever reason.

Alrik Vas wrote:That's not really a problem with the argument as it is just an overall issue with damage capacity in general.

It IS the argument though if people are saying that the reason that MD weapons should be allowed to do this is that they operate differently than RL weapons, because in RL you cant destroy a tank with any number of rifle bullets no matter how many you fire, so a combi weapon doesn't increase damage.....but that MD weapons do.
But that argument is FALSE in palladium because enough SD bullets WILL destroy an SD tank. Thus a combi-SD rifle will destroy a tank faster.
The problem is that people make the false comparison that SD weapons are like RL weapons....

Alrik Vas wrote:That's fine though, and also correct. Though we know that tracking damage capacity along with damage reduction for some reason isn't done in most rpgs...for whatever reason.

I wouldn't say 'most' I would say 'some' I have played a number of games where damage reduction of one sort or another is a thing (GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, In Nomine, World of Darkness, Deadlands, BESM).

eliakon wrote:The problem is that people make the false comparison that SD weapons are like RL weapons....

The default for fiction is and always has been that the world depicted is as the real world except as stated to be different. We don't assume that gravity varies by 1/r in Palladium just because it does not say anywhere how the Law of Gravity is applied here. We don't assume that humans lack toenails just because they aren't described. If you start assuming otherwise then you wind up with the quickly unworkable "the only things we know about these worlds are a few hundred pages of text, everything else is up for grabs".

We know that weapons and damage work differently in the specific way described by simply ablative damage capacity and simply cumulative damage. That one change does not mean that we throw everything else we know about weapons out the window. We only throw out in real life that which is actually contradicted by the game.

cosmicfish wrote:

eliakon wrote:The problem is that people make the false comparison that SD weapons are like RL weapons....

The default for fiction is and always has been that the world depicted is as the real world except as stated to be different. We don't assume that gravity varies by 1/r in Palladium just because it does not say anywhere how the Law of Gravity is applied here. We don't assume that humans lack toenails just because they aren't described. If you start assuming otherwise then you wind up with the quickly unworkable "the only things we know about these worlds are a few hundred pages of text, everything else is up for grabs".

We know that weapons and damage work differently in the specific way described by simply ablative damage capacity and simply cumulative damage. That one change does not mean that we throw everything else we know about weapons out the window. We only throw out in real life that which is actually contradicted by the game.

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.