Assault Rifle Damage Too High?

[TrippyHippy]

......"ill-considered threat"?!

Threat? Really? You make it sound like you recieved abusive emails from Mongoose or summat! :lol:

Let's be blunt....you wouldn't like this game whatever happens now. The playtest period is effectively over, however, and with a few of us already having playing campaigns set up, nobody really cares that much about your complaints now either.

The game will be whatever it will be, and some people will like it and some people won't. Either way, I don't think any of us 'fans' are truly qualified to say whether the game will be a financial success or not, regardless of how loud we shout about it.

 

[EDG]

The playtest period is effectively over, however

Not quite - it's extended for another week(-ish).

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=33311

 

[TrippyHippy]

Oh, righto!

To be honest though, with the exception of the work you did for the World Generation stuff (which I support enthusiastically), I didn't see much of what needed to be changed.

The psionics system was pretty much a standard one, and hardly changed from previous editions in any major way. The Trade rules were pretty basic and straightforward too. If we want more elaborate systems for both (and I'm not sure I do, currently), I sure they will arrive with supplements.

It has left me with something of a quandry about what to send in, this time round. I had considered just sending in an account of one of my recent sessions from the campaign we are running (which was set up to be a Le Carre style spy thriller, but due to player excitability can often veer into Paranoia-esque style comedy!).

Bluntly, though, we are just ready to go with it. Bring on the release!

 

[EDG]

The Trade rules were pretty basic and straightforward too.

I believe the trade/passenger rules are in need of fixing, seethis thread.

There's still much to be done IMO, but it's definitely getting there .

 

[tbeard1999]

......"ill-considered threat"?!

Threat? Really? You make it sound like you recieved abusive emails from Mongoose or summat! :lol:

Let's be blunt....you wouldn't like this game whatever happens now.

Given that I've been forthright in my low regard for the T/E system and initiative system, is this really a newsflash?

The playtest period is effectively over, however, and with a few of us already having playing campaigns already set up, nobody really cares that much about your complaints now either....

No one? Well, as I said elsewhere, I'd be leery of relying overly much on comments from my company's forum, for the following reasons:

1. If relying on die rolls alone, it takes hundreds or thousands of rolls, carefully tracked and analyzed, to identify the kinds of statistical tendencies I've identified. Somehow, I doubt most playtest groups go to that much trouble. Of course, simple statistical analyses can quickly identify such trends. Mongoose's failure to make such minimal efforts does not inspire confidence.

2. Since a major criticism is that the T/E system skews towards the extremes, player reactions could be affected by (a) the normal tendency to enjoy excellent rolls; and (b) the degree to which the referee denies the NPCs the benefit of excellent rolls.

3. Lack of criticism does not necessarily mean that there are no critics. It is certainly possible that folks have tried this system out, hated it, and never bothered commenting.

4. In general, I notice that comments on game company forums tend to be dispropotionally supportive. In my own email group for my rules, A Fistful of TOWs, this is certainly the case (positive comments outweigh negative ones by probably 100 to 1). So I don't know how much stock we can really place in your observation that the Mongoose forum denizens seem happy with the mechanic. I also imagine that people tend to join forums for things they like, not things they dislike. If the RPG was not called "Traveller", I'd never have wasted time criticizing it.

5. I also wonder how many playtesters are actually using the rules as written. Someone brought this up in a private email, and I later recalled that we had this problem with some playtests of Fistful of TOWs. Certainly, the incredible willingness of supporters to suggest fixes (rather than defend the current mechanics as written) offers some support for this proposition.

6. The Pavlovian attack-response of some supporters can have a chilling effect on further negative commentary. I particularly like the absurd argument advanced by some that because someone doesn't like the system (i.e. he's "biased"), his comments--including statistical and other factual comments--should be ignored. It's amazing that they cannot see that the same logic would require ignoring comments of people who love the system. Bias is bias, after all. Anyhow, someone could be forgiven for concluding that such people are just too foolish to reason with, and then leaving without further comment.

In any case, it appears that Mongoose has pretty well resolved the debate and are going through with the system in its current state, more or less. I genuinely wish them luck. Because if I am correct about the defects in the T/E system and initiative system, they'll face some serious challenges in the marketplace.

 

[TrippyHippy]

'Pavlovian attacks' now! You poor wounded soul! :lol:

Your personal research into the psychology of those who have the audacity to disagree with you, I'm sure, will be considered legendary in the years to come. Either that, or forgotten by the end of the month. :roll:

 

[EDG]

4. In general, I notice that comments on game company forums tend to be dispropotionally supportive. In my own email group for my rules, A Fistful of TOWs, this is certainly the case (positive comments outweigh negative ones by probably 100 to 1). So I don't know how much stock we can really place in your observation that the Mongoose forum denizens seem happy with the mechanic. I also imagine that people tend to join forums for things they like, not things they dislike. If the RPG was not called "Traveller", I'd never have wasted time criticizing it.

I think that most people are here because they want to playtest the Traveller system, not because they're Mongoose fans. For a playtest to work, people have to be honest and unbiased, and the designers have to be open to suggestions to change the system if the playtesters really don't like something - and it does sound like Mongoose are looking at the game engine again though and tweaking some numbers to try to make it work better. Whether it works to your satisfaction is another matter, but at least they're looking at it.

I've not seen any instances here where people are biased in favour of the playtest rules just because it's Mongoose, but I have seen instances where people just say "eh, I don't think it's a problem so I don't care for your fixes" - which might be what you're seeing.

Certainly, the incredible willingness of supporters to suggest fixes (rather than defend the current mechanics as written) offers some support for this proposition.

If they're doing that then they really should be telling Mongoose why they are making the tweaks to the system and how their tweaks make it work better. Then Mongoose will know what needs to be fixed.


I'd suggest that you try to present your case more coherently and objectively - if you've found a real statistical problem then Mongoose should be taking notice, and they're the ones that matter here, not the people that are bored of your discussions. But I'd suggest focussing on suggestions to fix it (and test them out) rather than talk about how crap the current system is - that'll get more people on your side.

 

[tbeard1999]

4. In general, I notice that comments on game company forums tend to be dispropotionally supportive. In my own email group for my rules, A Fistful of TOWs, this is certainly the case (positive comments outweigh negative ones by probably 100 to 1). So I don't know how much stock we can really place in your observation that the Mongoose forum denizens seem happy with the mechanic. I also imagine that people tend to join forums for things they like, not things they dislike. If the RPG was not called "Traveller", I'd never have wasted time criticizing it.

I think that most people are here because they want to playtest the Traveller system, not because they're Mongoose fans.

The two are not mutually exclusive. However, I stand by the observation that most comments in game company forums tend to be positive, even in playtesting. Since many games fail in the market, I presume that the company takes this statistical tendency into account when weighing those opinions.

As I noted, my own experience strongly confirms this observation.

Now, this does not mean that the opinions of such people should be disregarded. Someone who loves Mongoose can still accurately judge the system. That said, it would be very unwise to conclude that a game will be beloved by the market just because a majority of public comments on your forum are positive. But hey...it's not my money at stake here.

But consider this hypothetical. If you were making a bet on which team was most likely to win next year's Super Bowl, would you bet on the team that a majority of people in Dallas, Texas publicly say is most likely to win the Super Bowl?

For a playtest to work, people have to be honest and unbiased, and the designers have to be open to suggestions to change the system

Oh I agree. But I think that you would agree that public comments are about as reliable as public ballots are. Far more important, in my opinion, is for the playtesters to be given an anonymous forum in which they can express complaints. In addition, I would note that it is not the playtester's job to write the rules. Rather, the playtester should test the rules and the designer should do his job and fix them. Of course, suggestions are fine. But in my own experience, I found that very few playtest suggestions were workable. At the end of the day, it was my job to address (or dismiss) the flaws that led to criticisms.

if the playtesters really don't like something - and it does sound like Mongoose are looking at the game engine again though and tweaking some numbers to try to make it work better. Whether it works to your satisfaction is another matter, but at least they're looking at it.

Is this really true? I mean, have the game mechanics really changed very much from v1.0 of the playtest rules? If not, then either Mongoose had a brilliant design from the get-go or they really aren't listening.

I've not seen any instances here where people are biased in favour of the playtest rules just because it's Mongoose

Well, surely you wouldn't expect someone to come out and say this explicitely. In my experience, how folks act indicates far more about their true opinions than what they say.

but I have seen instances where people just say "eh, I don't think it's a problem so I don't care for your fixes" - which might be what you're seeing.

Maybe, but I have no problem with someone saying that. What I do have a problem with is some fenderhead who actually asserts that my factual assertions should be ignored because I don't like the system. Surely you'd agree that this is absurd.

Facts are facts and they stand independently of the biases if the person asserting them. I must admit to a very limited amount of patience with folks who are unable to grasp this simple point.

Certainly, the incredible willingness of supporters to suggest fixes (rather than defend the current mechanics as written) offers some support for this proposition <that they are not using the rules as written>.

If they're doing that then they really should be telling Mongoose why they are making the tweaks to the system and how their tweaks make it work better. Then Mongoose will know what needs to be fixed.

Well, I am certain that these folks have told Mongoose this. But you appear to be missing my point -- if a playtester is not playing the rules as written, then it would be very foolish to rely on positive feedback from him.

I'd suggest that you try to present your case more coherently

Already done that ad nauseum. If there are specific criticisms that you don't understand, I'll reply. But at this point, I think I've been very clear on what I dislike and why.

and objectively - if you've found a real statistical problem then Mongoose should be taking notice

They have no defense if they haven't. I've posted them here, in the COI forum and sent them via email to Mongoose. And at the end of the day, no one has effectively challenged them.

FWIW, looks to me like the key problem in the T/E system is that the designer seems unaware that the normal d6 distributions are inapplicable.

But I'd suggest focussing on suggestions to fix it (and test them out) rather than talk about how crap the current system is - that'll get more people on your side.

Well, I really don't care about getting people on my side. As noted, the nature of these types of forums will favor fans over critics. And I have tried to fix the system. It simply does not seem to be fixable. Not that it's my job to fix it, of course. I have also statistically analysed a number of proposed alternatives and even given my opinion on which is best. So, I think I've been "constructive" in any meaningful definition of the term.

The problem, in my opinion, is not that the T/E and initiative systems need to be tweaked. My criticisms are systemic; the systems cannot help but yield these defective (IMHO) results.

In any case, the existence of a problem is not affected by my inability to fix the problem. I cannot repair a broken car engine...but I can tell when it won't start or runs rough.

And by the way--is assault rifle damage gonna be fixed?

 

[TrippyHippy]

They probably aren't listening much to you anymore, because you are simply obsessing over a single issue, to the exclusion of anything else (to the extent that you are predictable), offering no practical solutions to your problem other than 'ditch everything', and are dismissing other people's experiences on the issue as less important or valid than yours, often quite insultingly*.

There is an anonymous forum, to a degree, btw. It's the email address. Personally, however, I'm happy to present any comments I have on a public forum, because it allows other people to either correct or develop my group's observations.

*My own gaming experiences include Traveller in both Classic, T4 and GURPS versions, along with Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer, Vampire, Mage, Wraith, Paranoia, Transhuman Space, Nobilis, Feng Shui, Kult, Pendragon, RuneQuest, D&D,....HoL....

If all that makes me a blind Mongoose 'fanboy', then I apologise. :roll:

 

[tbeard1999]

They probably aren't listening much to you anymore...

Well, at least I still have you

because you are simply obsessing over a single issue, to the exclusion of anything else...

<shrug>

Can't speak for others, but the combat system is a pretty important "single issue" to me. Other than (maybe) character generation, the most important feature in the game to me. In fact, a crappy combat system is pretty much a deal killer for me. And the T/E system and initiative system are the main components of the combat system. Hence my interest in them.

And for the record, I am not troubled by the flaws I've found in the character generation system (the survival rolls are too high IMHO) because they can easily be fixed. Can't say the same for the combat system, unfortunately.

...offering no practical solutions to your problem other than 'ditch everything'

When did it become my job to redesign the system? I'm pretty sure that I've received no checks from Mongoose...

As I've noted before, some things cannot be fixed. And flaws exist independently of my ability to fix them. I can't fix a car engine, but I know when it won't start up.

*My own gaming experiences include Traveller in both Classic, T4 and GURPS versions, along with Call of Cthulhu, Warhammer, Vampire, Mage, Wraith, Paranoia, Transhuman Space, Nobilis, Feng Shui, Kult, Pendragon, RuneQuest, D&D,....HoL....

If all that makes me a blind Mongoose 'fanboy', then I apologise. :roll:

You keep using the word "fanboy", not me.

Besides, I prefer the term "Fangoose" myself

In any case, if you say you love the system, I believe you. I am certainly not qualified to opine on your personal tastes. I am perplexed at what your gaming CV has to do with anything, however.

 

[EDG]

They probably aren't listening much to you anymore, because you are simply obsessing over a single issue, to the exclusion of anything else (to the extent that you are predictable), offering no practical solutions to your problem other than 'ditch everything', and are dismissing other people's experiences on the issue as less important or valid than yours, often quite insultingly*.

You do realise you're not doing anything to help the situation either. I've not followed all these threads but I do know that attacking a poster because of his opinions is unhelpful and unconstructive (I should know because you've done that to me several times).

If you're taking part in this playtest seriously then you're here to playtest the rules and offer suggestions to fix the system if necessary - if all you're doing is throwing peanuts from the gallery then you're just wasting people's time. If tbeard thinks the problem is so bad that the system is inherently unfixable without a complete rewrite then that's his opinion. He seems to have offered lots of statistical backup for his claims though - if you disagree then it's up to you to offer statistical backup to counter that, just saying "I played it and I think it's fine" isn't good enough.

But at the end of the day either the statistics work or they don't, and the facts of the statistics should speak for themselves.

 

[Sturn]

Would you guys kindly take it to a chat room someplace, note the title of this thread. Could you delete your rants so we can get back to the topic at hand? Nearly half of the posts here now have nothing to do with the topic. Thanks.

 

[Lane Shutt]

Back on topic here.

Just maybe the designers took factors other than muzzle energy in to consideration.

Within the 5.56 NATO classification there are many types of projectiles. Some of the more recent ones are better at penetrating body armor and create a larger wound cavity near the entry point. I have not researched the subject but it could be that many larger rounds tend to penetrate deeper and have less of a wound cavity. This over penetration is fairly common in firearms, the 9mm pistol round has greater muzzle energy than the slower .45 ACP round yet the .45 does much more damage.

Assault rifles tend to be lighter thus easier to aim and hold on target. This could be considered an accuracy bonus to damage.

Most Assault rifles are assumed to fire bursts, this would give a higher chance to hit (with an experienced user) and slight chance of multiple hits.

Lower power round -> less recoil. This allows quicker, more accurate shots.

Overall an Assault rifle might be able to do more damage than a heavier rifle, under combat conditions and many rounds fired.

 

[TrippyHippy]

You do realise you're not doing anything to help the situation either. I've not followed all these threads but I do know that attacking a poster because of his opinions is unhelpful and unconstructive (I should know because you've done that to me several times).

If you're taking part in this playtest seriously then you're here to playtest the rules and offer suggestions to fix the system if necessary - if all you're doing is throwing peanuts from the gallery then you're just wasting people's time. If tbeard thinks the problem is so bad that the system is inherently unfixable without a complete rewrite then that's his opinion. He seems to have offered lots of statistical backup for his claims though - if you disagree then it's up to you to offer statistical backup to counter that, just saying "I played it and I think it's fine" isn't good enough.

But at the end of the day either the statistics work or they don't, and the facts of the statistics should speak for themselves.

In order to respect the wishes of posters not wanting to derail the thread, I will be as brief as I can.

You have to ask youself why people are att6acking your posts, EDG, and considering that you spent a long time attacking other 'grognard' posters on this site, over issues such as the UPP and the cover design, I'd be very wary of glass-houses (particularly when it culminated in sending me hostile, unwanted emails to my personal address).

And in the case of tbeard, he isn't presenting statistical facts - he's presenting a flawed statistical model, and persisting in claiming it is fact, despite other posters providing more robust statistical models that resolve his core issue for him (the 'open' effect roll). Yet, if he shouts loud enough, he will convince some casual observers of the validity of his complaint - which is an issue for me. If I am about to invest a lot of my own time and money into a line, I don't want somebody perpetuating unreasonable negativity about it (and that is not the same as criticism)- that's all. Oh, and I have made other contributions towards the playtest, beyond peanut throwing, btw, it's just that now, honestly, our group is just waiting to go.

 

[EDG]

(particularly when it culminated in sending me hostile, unwanted emails to my personal address).

I've never done anything of the sort, all I did was PM you to avoid derailing threads further to tell you to stop doing exactly what you're doing now. I got a couple of very insulting PMs from you in response to that. Just wanted to set that straight.

Sorry, back to the thread topic. I'm just not going to sit by and let people fabricate lies about me harrassing them. I don't even know what trippyhippy's personal address is, and I've never sent him emails (PMs on the board, yes. Emails, no).

 

[Sturn]

I politely asked for you folks to stop. We are Traveller players, so I think most of us are adults here. Thanks for derailing this thread.

Can a moderator delete these posts or move them out to a another thread so this one isn't completey ruined by a few egos?

 

[Se Chris]

We are Traveller players, so I think most of us are adults here.

Sadly, the evidence is starting to contradict you. This thread is being locked. If people want to discuss assault rifle damage some more feel free to start a new one.