From: wilder@nx04.mik.uky.edu (jeff wilder)
Subject: Re: SRUNII: Laser sights and SG links
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
X-Path: nx04.mik.uky.edu!wilder
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:14:08 GMT

In <BxL9GB.HnK@ulowell.ulowell.edu> rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester) writes:

|Jeff Wilder divulges:

|>1)  SRII fixed one of the major glaring problems with the SR combat
|>	system--namely, that weapons were not deadly enough when they
|>	hit their targets.  Bullets kill.  SRII now reflects that.
|>	*However*, the other side of the problem was not addressed--
|>	namely, that it was entirely *too* easy to hit with those
|>	non-deadly weapons.  Now that SRII has fixed the first prob-
|>	lem, the second is probably becoming clear to most of you. :-)


|I am forced to disagree with your asessment.  I am an NRA Yoeman and
|my roommate is a qualified Expert with the M-16.  We both agreed that
|its pretty tough to miss with *ANY* gun at what SR2 terms short or even
|medium and long range.  That's whether you're skilled in firearms use or not.  
|And that's nowadays.  I'd assume that, by 2053, weapons technology has 
|improved so that standard point-and-shoot is even simpler.

|Now, while moving targets are MUCH more difficult to hit than stationary
|ones, the game DOES provide negative accuracy modifiers for just such
|circumstances.  Point being that its real easy to get waxed in a fight
|where firearms are used.

So it's your contention that a novice shooter (say, Firearms 2) *should*
have a 56% chance of scoring a hit on a *moving* man-sized target?  At
20 meters?  With a *handgun*?  *Without* aiming?  Oh, and in combat con-
ditions, with every possibility that the target (or his buddies) are firing
back?  56%?  Oh, and that's only the first shot of the combat phase.  That
novice shooter gets another try.  Oh, and you wanna hear the best part?
That shooter gets to add more dice from the Combat pool.  At this point
of course, he'll almost never miss.   

I'll admit, your assessment of my direct experience with weapons is indeed
accurate.  However, in addition to reading widely on the subject, I've also
had the benefit of two uncles who served combat duty in Vietnam,
and another who's been involved in a firefight as a cop.  According to
their testimony, hits in combat, even relatively open combat, are *rare*.

I'll tell ya what:  when you and your qualified Expert roommate (you figure
he beats Firearms 2?) have popped some rounds at targets that are firing
back, with *live* ammo, I'll begin to consider your opinion in the same light
as I do my relatives'.

|>2)  Laser sights do not increase the shooter's accuracy directly, but
|>	rather rely on subsequent observation & correction of the point
|>	of laser contact.  The following rules reflect this.

|Bullshit.  I've fired a gun with a laser sight on it.  You know where
|to aim because you've got a pinpoint of red light where the bullet's
|going to hit, not because you pull some sort of twisted forward-observer
|maneuver.  Accuracy of the shooter IS directly increased because you
|know exactly where you're aiming.  When I shoot, I don't fire and
|then aim.

Bullshit.  You don't aim where the laser is *lying*, the laser *lies*
where you've *aimed*.  Think about it for a second.  With me?  Try to
follow this:

You see a target.  You raise your laser-sighted Ares at him.  (At this 
point, in my system, you've just rolled your Firearm dice.  You haven't
pulled the *trigger*, you're just using your skill to point the gun in
the right direction.)  You look for your ruby dot.  Now, if you *see*
your ruby dot, on the target, or on a portion of the target you want,
you *immediately* squeeze the trigger.  (You've already rolled the dice,
remember?)  Blam.  This simple action is over.  (As it would be if you
*didn't* have a LS, and were targeting manually.)                     

Ah, but what if you *don't* see that ruby dot?  Do you pull the trigger
regardless?  Of course not; it's a sure miss.  So, you *readjust*, using    
the beam, and your own skill.  (In my system, you readjust by rerolling
the failures when you *first* targeted.  After all, if you have the dot
on him [say, rolled 1 success], you *keep* the dot on him.  You just try
for a more vital shot.)  All this takes 1 simple action; a very short  
amount of time.  Hopefully, you've tracked him with the laser; NOW you
squeeze the trigger; *unless*...

You're *still* not happy with the lie of the laser.  In which case, for
conservation of ammo, you don't squeeze off the shot at all.

|>3)  A smartgun link (but not smart goggles) works similarly to a laser
|>	sight, but the process is condensed into one simple action, rather
|>	than requiring two.  (This simulates the increased speed of 
|>	response I envision for cybernetic targeting systems.)  Target
|>	Numbers, however, as always, remain normal (i.e. 5, at Short
|>	range.)

|I envision a smartlink as a pair of crosshairs that are superimposed
|upon the user's field of vision at his aiming point.  I'd assume that
|most SR2 players would agree with this, since it's consistent with the
|description of the smartlink given in the rulebook.  If I am correct,
|then you can refer to my response to your garbage about laser sights
|above.

I also consider it crosshairs.  So what?  The *principle* in game mechanics
terms is exactly the same.  You don't aim the crosshairs, you aim the
*weapon*.  (Aiming the crosshairs?!  Now *that* would be a smartgun...)
The big advantage of an SG link over a LS would be speed; you simply
command the weapon to fire.  Thus no need for an extra simple action.
(This is actually not a great explanation; there's no real *reason* I
can see for a SG link to be any better, in GM terms, than a LS.  I like the
rule, though, because a SG link *should* be better.  It's just...cooler.)

|>4)  The user of a laser sight or SG link may *always* choose not to
|>	pull the trigger, even after he has rolled the dice.  (This
|>	simulates his dissatifaction with the lie of the laser or
|>	crosshairs.)  However, he must so choose before the defender
|>	rolls his resistance dice, and any Combat dice allocated are
|>	still consumed.  The main advantage of this is conservation of
|>	ammunition.  I would not allow this choice for shots that have
|>	Targets modified for previous recoil.

|Since you have no understanding of basic aiming principles, and even less
|understanding of how a laser sight enhances a shooter's accuracy, you're
|wifty little game mechanic is pointless.  I simply allow my players
|to calculate thier target numbers and then opt whether or not to shoot.
|With any sort of accuracy-enhancing hardware, it becomes a great deal
|easier to gauge the difficulty of a shot, but not so much so that you
|can "take back" a bullet that you've already fired.

Who said anything about "taking back a bullet"?  Read it again, and go  
slowly this time.  The shooter is simply choosing not to fire.  (And you
actually tell your players their T#s?!  Why in the world would you want to
do that?  Oh, sure.  I guess it's okay with you if they decide to fire
because their T# is 11 instead of 12, huh?  Geez.  "Well, with an *11*, I
have an 8% chance, see, but if it's a *12*, cause I happen to be walking,
see, my chance drops to less than 3%.  That's per die, of course.  Get it? 
I'd *never* fire at T# *12*!  That's be *useless*!")

|>5)  I use a modified "Rule of One," as well.  If greater than 1/2 of the
|>	skill dice come up "1s," treat it as a normal "Rule of One" result.
|>	This makes fumbles *possible*, but keeps them relatively rare, and
|>	still dependent on skill level.  A highly skilled person will
|>	still fumble much less often than a novice.

|If I may ask: why?  Fumbles are already possible (albeit improbable), and,
|with the increases in weapons technology that I hope are available by
|2053, rightly so, because gun malfunctions SHOULD be rare.  Furthermore,
|the current system works fine because a novice is MUCH more likely to jam
|or misfire a gun than an experienced shooter.

You may indeed ask.  "Improbable" is *really* understating the situation.
Lessee.  Skill 1 = 16% chance of fumble.  Probably about right for this
sort of beginner.  Skill 2, a little better, but still a novice: about 3%.
Too low, but I can live with it, I guess.  The problems begin at skill 3:
less that .5%.  And they drop into absolutely ridiculous depths after that:
skill 4: (quick calculation...) about .08%.  Skill 5?  .00012%.  See where
this is going?  Has *anybody* out there in Netland *ever* seen a skill 6
person fumble?  Ever?

This problem wouldn't exist if penalties to T#s increased the likelihood
of a fumble (which, in most cases, they should.)  But they don't, and   
though it's possible to make them do so, it's not worth the effort, because
on *every* roll, you'd have to make a calculation for *every* die, not
just the upper end rolls and the ones, as it is now.  Too damn much time.

To address your points directly:

1)  The *weapons* reliability I have no problem with.  I agree with you;
	caseless ammo will vastly increase reliability (once the build up 
	problems are solved.)  The possibility of fumble lies with the
	*person*, however.  That's why it's based on their skill rolls,
	after all, and not on some Weapon Reliability stat.  And, in case
	you run a different sort of campaign:  Firearms rolls are nowhere
	*near* the majority of rolls my players make.

2)  In my system, the novice is *still* much more likely to fumble than an
	expert.  In fact (coincidence?  You decide. :-), my rules don't
	change any probabilities until the problem area begins at skill 3.
	Remember, you fumble at *greater than* half your dice coming up
	"1s".  

Look, maybe I read this the wrong way, and your response wasn't as belli-
gerent as it actually read.  Regardless, I've tried to respond rationally,    
and with further explanation of my system.  Read it, and maybe you'll see
what I'm driving at.  Obviously (When did I imply SG links didn't show as
crosshairs?  When did I say anything about "taking back a bullet"?), you've
missed at least part of it the first time.

If anybody is interested, I playtested all this tonight.  (Well, except the
modified Rule of One.  Been playing with that for a while.)  There was a
*massive* firefight (finale to "Ivy & Chrome"), and the system worked won-
derfully.  Believe it or not, some Firearms 7 people (on both sides), actu-
ally *missed* with shots.  The outcome was never really in doubt, of course,
my player characters the bad-asses that they are.  (Sloooow, but bad-asses.)
Of course, there was a tense moment or two when that copter suddenly loomed
in at tree level...

--
==============================================================================
| Jeff W  uk06666@ukpr.uky.edu | Meddle not in the affairs of cats, for they |
| Wilder  & wilder@mik.uky.edu | are subtle, and will piss on your cyberdeck.|
==============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc