Autofire Question

[tbeard1999]

Ah, but I have playtested it.

Perhaps you can answer the question that started this thread (since none has been forthcoming so far):

How do modifiers (skill, DEX, etc.) affect autofire rolls?

Surely, this question has come up in playtesting?

I'm sorry, I just seem to have picked up on one of your posts, either here or on another forum, that you've just skimread the playtest files. I apologise if this is not the case.

How do modifiers affect autofire rolls in my game? - the same as they do in the core system - they affect the target number rolled against.

So, in an autofire attack, you apply the appropriate "to hit" modifiers to the effect die(s)?

I think I'll need a definition of "more constructive".

Still need that definition.

Seems to me that if the core mechanic is broken, it would be a better idea to replace it now rather than in a supplement (or second edition) later on? (I have never bought into gamer conspiracy theories that companies intentionally publish flawed games so that they can sell Second Editions later).

And to be clear, I am demanding nothing.

Yes you are. You might want to to dress it up in other language, but at the core what you are saying is that you will not be happy unless the core mechanic is changed. In so many words, it's a demand.

That's an interesting definition of a "demand". I do think that Mongoose is making a mistake by publishing these rules as they are. And I do think that the T/E mechanic cannot be "fixed" to resolve the problems I think I've identified. But is that really a "demand"?

If I believe that a course of action is doomed to fail, does that really equate to a demand that it be changed?

And saying a mechanic is 'broken' just because you don't like the statistical outcomes on offer as a simulation exercise, is not constructive, either.

Would you feel better if I amended my statement to say "it appears to be broken"?

And since I actually do believe that it's broken, would you have me lie and say something different?

I mean, surely you aren't just trying to make me stop talking about what I consider to be serious flaws in the system?

Surely you aren't saying that "constructive criticism" can't actually criticise?

Personally, I don't see the argument for a simple fix - merely accepting the system as it is, and enjoying play. This isn't a system that clunks along - it moves at pace, it captures a drama, it's tactical and crunchy.

So is Chinese Checkers -- but that hardly makes the case that Chinese Checkers would constitute a reasonable RPG combat system. But hey...if you like the system, then feel free to ignore my deranged rantings.

On the other hand, if you are nervous that I may be right, then I'd think you'd want to encourage Mongoose not to publish a game with known defects. Because if I am right, the game will be harshly criticised by the gaming public. I mean, it isn't like anyone can claim now that these flaws (if they actually exist) were unappreciated before the game was published.

It's fun. It works for me, and my group.

Then good for you. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about my deranged rantings. Clearly, I am mistaken and the product line will do very well in the marketplace.

I suppose I could design an effective replacement combat system, but no one's hired me to do so. That isn't really necessary, as there is a perfectly serviceable combat system in T4. With minimal adjustments, it could serve very well for the MGT combat system. Or, the systems in Azhanti High Lightning -- no more fussy and far better designed than the current system IMHO.

Well, thank God they've not hired you if your basic fix is to use the T4 system! :roll:

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice. And I should have been clearer -- it can be easily adapted to a 2d6 system (I loathed the 1/2 d6 system of T4 and would not suggest repeating it). It also has some qualities that I don't care for. But these can be mitigated with effective modifications. And the result would be a damnsight better than the MGT system in my opinion. Damning with faint praise, I'll admit.

But the issue is moot, since I haven't been engaged.

 

[TrippyHippy]

So, in an autofire attack, you apply the appropriate "to hit" modifiers to the effect die(s)?

No, the Effect dice is merely adjusted by the weapon-in-question's damage rating. I don't use any modifiers beyond that. You asked how modifiers affect auto-rolls. The answer is that they affect your chances to hit (on multiple dice rolls) - not the Effect dice. That is my understanding of the rules. What's yours?

Still need that definition.

Then may I suggest a dictionary.

That's an interesting definition of a "demand". I do think that Mongoose is making a mistake by publishing these rules as they are. And I do think that the T/E mechanic cannot be "fixed" to resolve the problems I think I've identified. But is that really a "demand"?

If I believe that a course of action is doomed to fail, does that really equate to a demand that it be changed?

It is if you just keep repeating the same thing regardless of the responses you recieve from others, and continually dismiss their own experiences. It implies that you'll complain incessantly until your demands are met.

Would you feel better if I amended my statement to say "it appears to be broken"?

And since I actually do believe that it's broken, would you have me lie and say something different?

I mean, surely you aren't just trying to make me stop talking about what I consider to be serious flaws in the system?
Surely you aren't saying that "constructive criticism" can't actually criticise?

No. What I am saying is that the term 'broken' is an absolute, but your perceptions and experiences are subjective. You are conflating the two. Criticise all you want - but don't imply or assert that only your opinions are valid, please.

On the other hand, if you are nervous that I may be right, then I'd think you'd want to encourage Mongoose not to publish a game with known defects. Because if I am right, the game will be harshly criticised by the gaming public. I mean, it isn't like anyone can claim now that these flaws (if they actually exist) were unappreciated before the game was published.

The game is on public display already. Apart from you, who else is complaining about the effect/time dice? Now compare that to the number of people who have praised it. All I'm pointing out is that it is a very rigid stance for you to take, to dismiss the entire mechanic in this way.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice. And I should have been clearer -- it can be easily adapted to a 2d6 system (I loathed the 1/2 d6 system of T4 and would not suggest repeating it). It also has some qualities that I don't care for. But these can be mitigated with effective modifications. And the result would be a damnsight better than the MGT system in my opinion. Damning with faint praise, I'll admit.

But the issue is moot, since I haven't been engaged.

You're being engaged right now. If you have a solution to your problem then say it. But frankly, asserting that we should:

a) ditch the entire core mechanic
b) replace it with something vaguely related to T4

...is hardly helping your cause at the moment.

 

[tbeard1999]

So, in an autofire attack, you apply the appropriate "to hit" modifiers to the effect die(s)?

No, the Effect dice is merely adjusted by the weapon-in-question's damage rating. I don't use any modifiers beyond that. You asked how modifiers affect auto-rolls. The answer is that they affect your chances to hit (on multiple dice rolls) - not the Effect dice. That is my understanding of the rules. What's yours?

I dunno. The text does not state that these rolls should be treated differently from other attacks, so there's no basis to assume that your fix is correct.

Yet if we treat them as other attacks, the result is fiddly and it gets pretty easy to just about always guarantee that the weapon damage will max out. The example is less than ideal because it does not tell us the firer's weapon skill (which would ordinarily be added to the damage, though the effect die cannot exceed 6). In any case, this is the assumption I've made in my analyses.

Still need that definition.

Then may I suggest a dictionary.

Since you suddenly seem unable or unwilling to define the term, I infer from your complaint, then, that your definition of "constructive criticism" is "no criticism". Is this about right?

What I find entertaining is the notion that somehow it's wrong to simply say "I think this system is crap", even when reams of statistical evidence are offered in support. Yet I'm pretty sure that you would not object at all to me saying "I think the system is wonderful" with no supporting evidence. This game hasn't become a religion for you, has it?

That's an interesting definition of a "demand". I do think that Mongoose is making a mistake by publishing these rules as they are. And I do think that the T/E mechanic cannot be "fixed" to resolve the problems I think I've identified. But is that really a "demand"?

If I believe that a course of action is doomed to fail, does that really equate to a demand that it be changed?

It is if you just keep repeating the same thing regardless of the responses you recieve from others, and continually dismiss their own experiences.

I disagree with the characterization, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you really just want me to stop saying mean things about the T/E system...that's it, isn't it?

It implies that you'll complain incessantly until your demands are met.

<shrug>

No one is forcing you to read my "incessant" complaints.

Would you feel better if I amended my statement to say "it appears to be broken"?

And since I actually do believe that it's broken, would you have me lie and say something different?

I mean, surely you aren't just trying to make me stop talking about what I consider to be serious flaws in the system?

Surely you aren't saying that "constructive criticism" can't actually criticise?

No.

Which question(s) are you responsing to?

What I am saying is that the term 'broken' is an absolute, but your perceptions and experiences are subjective.

So...if I amend all my statements to say "I think the system is broken", then this will satisfy you?

Criticise all you want - but don't imply or assert that only your opinions are valid, please.

<Irony meter explodes>

Well, if it will resolve the issue, you may read "in my opinion" into any of my statements that the T/E mechnic is broken. Of course, the statistical analysis is a factual assertion that needs to be rebutted with facts. If you can, of course.

On the other hand, if you are nervous that I may be right, then I'd think you'd want to encourage Mongoose not to publish a game with known defects. Because if I am right, the game will be harshly criticised by the gaming public. I mean, it isn't like anyone can claim now that these flaws (if they actually exist) were unappreciated before the game was published.

The game is on public display already. Apart from you, who else is complaining about the effect/time dice?

You mean, on a public Mongoose forum, I am the only person willing to criticise a Mongoose product????? I am shocked, shocked...

Of course, "everyone else likes it" isn't really a very devastatingly intelligent rebuttal, is it? In any case, I have never asserted that a majority of people in the Mongoose forum dislike the T/E mechanic. Therefore, your contra assertion seems irrelevant.

Now compare that to the number of people who have praised it. All I'm pointing out is that it is a very rigid stance for you to take, to dismiss the entire mechanic in this way.

<shrug>

I'll let the statistical analyses stand for themselves. I did not "dismiss" the mechanic -- I tried to come up with a fix and could not do so. Nor has anyone else here, when they've agreed that there was a problem.

In any case, I am perplexed (and amused) at how vociferously you seem to be trying to stop my criticism of the system. If I were truly convinced that the system is solid, I would not have wasted anything like the amount of effort you have.

I'm no psychologist, but I'm thinking that you're a bit nervous that I may be correct.

The tragedy is that silencing me won't help. Mongoose has been publicly put on notice about these purported defects. If I'm right, and if Mongoose chooses to print a defective game, then Mongoose can answer to the gamers who will wonder why a system with such obvious statistical flaws was foisted onto them.

If I'm wrong, then the game line will sell well for a long time. But if a Second Edition comes out in a year and the T/E system is replaced, then I think it will be fair to question Mongoose's good faith.

And while Mongoose can silence me here, I don't think I will allow you to do it. So I challenge you -- if I've made a significant factual error, please point it out. You'll find that I am quite willing to admit mistakes, if they are proven to be mistakes.

But I wouldn't waste any more time whining about me saying mean and nasty things about the T/E system. Because I couldn't care less if it offends you.

Besides--I've been completely honest about my opinion that the T/E system is crap. Only a complete moron could fail to figure this out or imply that I am somehow trying to hide this fact.

Well, it wouldn't necessarily be my first choice. And I should have been clearer -- it can be easily adapted to a 2d6 system (I loathed the 1/2 d6 system of T4 and would not suggest repeating it). It also has some qualities that I don't care for. But these can be mitigated with effective modifications. And the result would be a damnsight better than the MGT system in my opinion. Damning with faint praise, I'll admit.

But the issue is moot, since I haven't been engaged.

You're being engaged right now. If you have a solution to your problem then say it. But frankly, asserting that we should:

a) ditch the entire core mechanic
b) replace it with something vaguely related to T4

...is hardly helping your cause at the moment.

Didn't know I had a "cause".

Anyhow, I freely admit that I am unable to make the T/E mechanic work well. As I noted, it seems remarkably resistant to being fixed.

So any alternative combat system that I propose would have to discard the T/E system. <shrug> Those would be my terms and they are non-negotiable.

As for "helping my cause", well, I'm not too sure that any flaw would persuade you to ditch the system. You appear to have way too much ego invested in it.

(The same, of course, can be said of me. In my defense, I'll note that I took the trouble to produce some pretty detailed statistical analyses of the system at issue. And no one has rebutted them yet. If I have made a mathematical error, I'll gladly correct it. So I have gone to far more effort than most people with a simple irrational dislike of the system would go to.)

In any case, there's not much I can say if your statement boils down to "I agree with your statistical analysis and it does not bother me." <shrug> Who am I to disagree on a subjective claim about your personal taste?

My goal is simple -- I want MGT to be good and sell well. I want there to be (finally) a non-crappy version of Traveller. With its marketing prowess, Mongoose can make the ultimate version of the game. Unfortunately, it can also make the ultimate fiasco. It is my honest opinion--for reasons that I have thoroughly documented--that the current version of MGT will fail badly due to a core system that yields extremely dubious results. And as I find more evidence to support this contention, I'll post it. If I were about to spend tens of thousands of dollars on a game, I'd want the straight dope from my playtesters. So that's what I'm doing. If it hurts your feelings, well, I just don't care. Besides, accusations of Mindcrime just don't impress me.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I dunno. The text does not state that these rolls should be treated differently from other attacks, so there's no basis to assume that your fix is correct.

I'm not proposing a 'fix'. I'm stating the rules as I understand them. And to be honest, I'm not that bothered about damage maxing out, for reasons I've stated before. If you get hit, you get hit hard. The tactic is to not get hit.

Since you suddenly seem unable or unwilling to define the term, I infer from your complaint, then, that your definition of "constructive criticism" is "no criticism". Is this about right?

No. It means I'm not prepared to waste time on pointless, red herring arguments.

What I find entertaining is the notion that somehow it's wrong to simply say "I think this system is crap", even when reams of statistical evidence are offered in support. Yet I'm pretty sure that you would not object at all to me saying "I think the system is wonderful" with no supporting evidence. This game hasn't become a religion for you, has it?

Now you're just being patronising. Again, this is just pointless non-argument.

I disagree with the characterization, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you really just want me to stop saying mean things about the T/E system...that's it, isn't it?

No. I'm interested in what you've got to say, but you are making a criticism that is contrary to my own experiences, and a demand that is totally impractical, as much as anything else.

Well, if it will resolve the issue, you may read "in my opinion" into any of my statements that the T/E mechnic is broken.

No it won't because I regard your statistical evidence as being heavily bias in it's presentation, and therefore invalid, and again the term 'broken' is an absolute, which your observations are not.

If course, the statistical analysis is a factual assertion that needs to be rebutted with facts. If you can, of course.

Firstly, 'statistical analysis' is not the same thing as 'facts'. Secondly, you are ignoring the point that several have made to you, that your evidence is totally bias in the applications you are asserting.

You mean, on a public Mongoose forum, I am the only person willing to criticise a Mongoose product????? I am shocked, shocked...

Of course, "everyone else likes it" isn't really a very devastatingly intelligent rebuttal, is it? In any case, I have never asserted that a majority of people in the Mongoose forum dislike the T/E mechanic. Therefore, your contra assertion seems irrelevant.

It's a lot more intelligent than asserting that everybody else's experiences are wrong and only you are right.

I'll let the statistical analyses stand for themselves. I did not "dismiss" the mechanic -- I tried to come up with a fix and could not do so. Nor has anyone else here, when they've agreed that there was a problem.

No. Your solution is to ditch the core mechanic of the game, and replace it with something vaguely connected with T4. Your statistical analysis is skewed totally towards these ends - it's not valid, because it's bias.

I'm no psychologist, but I'm thinking that you're a bit nervous that I may be correct.

No. You're not a psychologist.

The tragedy is that silencing me won't help. Mongoose has been publicly put on notice about these purported defects. If I'm right, and if Mongoose chooses to print a defective game, then Mongoose can answer to the gamers who will wonder why a system with such obvious statistical flaws was foisted onto them.

If I'm wrong, then the game line will sell well for a long time. But if a Second Edition comes out in a year and the T/E system is replaced, then I think it will be fair to question Mongoose's good faith.

And while Mongoose can silence me here, I don't think I will allow you to do it. So I challenge you -- if I've made a significant factual error, please point it out. You'll find that I am quite willing to admit mistakes, if they are proven to be mistakes.

And you have the audacity to talk about my ego!

My goal is simple -- I want MGT to be good and sell well. I want there to be (finally) a non-crappy version of Traveller. With its marketing prowess, Mongoose can make the ultimate version of the game.

Good. But if your own analysis lives or dies on the effect/time dice mechanic, then I'm afraid Mongoose will have to balance your opinion of it with those of all the other playtesters involved, too.

You've definitely not provided a good argument in this thread, that's for sure.

 

[tbeard1999]

I dunno. The text does not state that these rolls should be treated differently from other attacks, so there's no basis to assume that your fix is correct.

I'm not proposing a 'fix'. I'm stating the rules as I understand them. And to be honest, I'm not that bothered about damage maxing out, for reasons I've stated before. If you get hit, you get hit hard. The tactic is to not get hit.

<shrug> I still see nothing in the rules to support your "interpretation".

Since you suddenly seem unable or unwilling to define the term, I infer from your complaint, then, that your definition of "constructive criticism" is "no criticism". Is this about right?

No. It means I'm not prepared to waste time on pointless, red herring arguments.

Such as?

What I find entertaining is the notion that somehow it's wrong to simply say "I think this system is crap", even when reams of statistical evidence are offered in support. Yet I'm pretty sure that you would not object at all to me saying "I think the system is wonderful" with no supporting evidence. This game hasn't become a religion for you, has it?

Now you're just being patronising. Again, this is just pointless non-argument.

Then it should be very easy for you to distinguish the two cases. Please explain to us how it's somehow okay to accept uncritical accolades while rejecting supported, critical (if blunt) criticisms.

I disagree with the characterization, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that you really just want me to stop saying mean things about the T/E system...that's it, isn't it?

No. I'm interested in what you've got to say, but you are making a criticiims that is contrary to my own experiences, and a demand that is totally impractical, as much as anything else.

Which "demand" are you referring to?

Well, if it will resolve the issue, you may read "in my opinion" into any of my statements that the T/E mechnic is broken.

No it won't because I regard your statistical evidence as being heavily bias in it's presentation, and therefore invalid

Evidence?

Please identify the specific flaws in my methodology that if corrected would result in a meaningfully different conclusion.

and again the term 'broken' is an absolute, which your observations are not.

So now, you'd forbid me from even offering the opinion that the T/E system is broken?

You know, I was joking about this being a religion to you. Now, I'm not so sure...

If course, the statistical analysis is a factual assertion that needs to be rebutted with facts. If you can, of course.

Firstly, 'statistical analysis' is not the same thing as 'facts'. Secondly, you are ignoring the point that several have made to you, that your evidence is totally bias in the applications you are asserting.

<yawn>

Please demonstrate specific flaws in my methodology, if you can.

You mean, on a public Mongoose forum, I am the only person willing to criticise a Mongoose product????? I am shocked, shocked...

Of course, "everyone else likes it" isn't really a very devastatingly intelligent rebuttal, is it? In any case, I have never asserted that a majority of people in the Mongoose forum dislike the T/E mechanic. Therefore, your contra assertion seems irrelevant.

It's a lot more intelligent than asserting that everybody else's experiences are wrong and only you are right.

Apparently, you don't quite understand what my assertions are. Let me see if I can help:

1. I believe that the T/E system yields the statistical results I showed in my previous posts.

2. a. I believe that these results are dubious and will result in a crappy game.

b. For instance, I am unable to reconcile the fact that the harder the task, the less amount of time a successful task will tend to take.

c. I am also very uncomfortable with the fact that the autofire system seems to radically move from "virtually no chance of hitting" to "virtually automatic hits".

d. I do not care for the fact that in cases where a negative net modifier applies, it is better to fire fewer shots than more.

e. I am also skeptical of the fact that poorly trained troops do better firing single shots while better trained troops do better with Autofire. This is the reverse of what we've observed in modern conflicts with automatic weapons.

f. I am uncomfortable with the fact that the T/E system skews strongly towards excellent results on effects -- and in cases where the effect is important, the player can usually virtually guarantee an excellent result.

g. I am unhappy with the fact that the damage system will tend to produce highly predictable damage amounts. No flesh wounds in that system. This is, in my opinion, unrealistic and uncinematic.

h. I am unhappy with the fact that the combat sequence is fussy and unable to replicate common skirmish tactics. As a Traveller GM who runs lots of mercenary type adventures, this is a very bad sign to me. I believe that there are alternative systems available that would be faster, less fussy, and do a better job of modelling combat. Oh and more fun, as I define that term.

i. I am unimpressed with the fact that the effect system skews significantly towards abject failures. A character making a roll with no net modifiers has a 52% chance of rolling an abject failure. If the net modifier is -1, the chance of an abject failure is 72%. EDIT: This is in the case of a failed task roll.

3. The fixes that have been offered do not, in my opinion, address the problem; or they introduce equally bad problems. In addition, they make a mockery of the notion of a universal mechanic.

4. I believe that if Mongoose releases this game in its current form, it will be a dud. And that will be a shame, since Mongoose has the marketing power to produce the definitive version of Traveller. In addition, if Mongoose then releases a Second Edition in six months, which ditches the T/E system, I will have no choice but to conclude that they knowingly released a defective game. This will not, in my opinion, bode well for Traveller.

I'll let the statistical analyses stand for themselves. I did not "dismiss" the mechanic -- I tried to come up with a fix and could not do so. Nor has anyone else here, when they've agreed that there was a problem.

No. Your solution is to ditch the core mechanic of the game, and replace it with something vaguely connected with T4.

You're talking out of your nether regions. I offered the T4 combat system as an example of a better combat system (if modified to fit a 2d6 system). I am no fan of T4; I just note that even it had a better combat system than the current one (in my opinion, of course).

FWIW, I have a combat system that I've used in one form or another since 1984 and it works fine for me. The latest version has been in existence since 1994. The problem with it is that it does not use hit points; it's based off the Striker system. In my experience, most players like hit points and are resistant to non-hit point systems. (Despite the fact that hit points do an amazingly poor job of simulating gunshot wounds). So I wouldn't use this system in a new version of Traveller (though I'd be tempted to offer it as an optional system). It's also interoperable with MegaTraveller and Striker, which adds value for the referee. It uses a 2d6 system, but I'm working (with indifferent success) on a d10 based version.

Your statistical analysis is skewed totally towards these ends - it's not valid, because it's bias.

Sounds like you're accusing me of thoughtcrime...

I'm no psychologist, but I'm thinking that you're a bit nervous that I may be correct.

No. You're not a psychologist.

But apparently, I am correct, given the shrillness of your post.

The tragedy is that silencing me won't help. Mongoose has been publicly put on notice about these purported defects. If I'm right, and if Mongoose chooses to print a defective game, then Mongoose can answer to the gamers who will wonder why a system with such obvious statistical flaws was foisted onto them.

If I'm wrong, then the game line will sell well for a long time. But if a Second Edition comes out in a year and the T/E system is replaced, then I think it will be fair to question Mongoose's good faith.

And while Mongoose can silence me here, I don't think I will allow you to do it. So I challenge you -- if I've made a significant factual error, please point it out. You'll find that I am quite willing to admit mistakes, if they are proven to be mistakes.

And you have the audacity to talk about my ego!

Eh?

My goal is simple -- I want MGT to be good and sell well. I want there to be (finally) a non-crappy version of Traveller. With its marketing prowess, Mongoose can make the ultimate version of the game.

Good. But if your own analysis lives or dies on the effect/time dice mechanic, then I'm afraid Mongoose will have to balance your opinion of it with those of all the other playtesters involved, too.

But of course. However, if I were about to invest many thousands of dollars or euros, I'd be listening to the one who supports his assertions with facts. I wouldn't be impressed with folks who seem mostly concerned about deviating from orthodoxy...would you?

You've definitely not provided a good argument in this thread, that's for sure.

Be assured I'll give your assessment all the consideration it deserves.

In the meantime, feel free to rebut my factual assertions with facts...if you can.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Y'know, if you carry on like this, with rude remarks and personal insults peppered thoughout your (unfeasably long) posts, then I'm just going to report you to an administrator.

That is your warning.

The point I was trying to make is that your statistics are bias, because of the approach you are making. Indeed, this whole thread is disingenuous, because you aren't really interested in the auto-fire rules per se, at all. What you are interested in is trying to 'prove' a previously formed opinion - that you don't like the effect/time dice mechanic. The autofire rules are just something you have found as a convenient stick. This is why when people take your auto-fire complaint seriously, and provide you with a specific solution for it, you dismiss it out of hand.

What you want, purely, is to ditch the effect/time dice mechanic entirely.

As I have said before, yes, the core dice mechanic is weighted somewhat towards less able tests being 'all or nothing', but for our group at least, this has not been an issue that has brought about an end to play. Does it simulate reality to an exacting degree? Possibly not. Does it produce a dramatic, swift resolution that the players like? In my group, yes it has.

Would I be happy to see the dice mechanic changed back to seperate effect and initiative rolls - no. I think it would make the game quite dull in some respects, and in the combat system particularly, would basically kill the whole 'tick' system that, for our group, has now become as much of a feature of the game as the life-path character generation is. All the statistics in the world that you choose to throw at me (or them) won't alter the experiences we've had with them. We know it works through the experiences we've had.

 

[tbeard1999]

Y'know, if you carry on like this, with rude remarks and personal insults peppered thoughout your (unfeasably long) posts, then I'm just going to report you to an administrator.

That is your warning.

<cringes in abject terror>

Oh no, not that. Anything but that...

<queue Clint Eastwood voice> "Go ahead, make my day..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m9pjJ6A9UM

The point I was trying to make is that your statistics are bias

How dare you insult me by claiming I am biased! Do it again and I'll report you to the authorities. And trust me, bucko, they'll give you such a reprimand!

...because of the approach you are making. Indeed, this whole thread is disingenuous, because you aren't really interested in the auto-fire rules per se, at all. What you are interested in is trying to 'prove' a previously formed opinion

I dunno...sounds like you're accusing me of thoughtcrime. Might have to report you for that.

In any case, personal bias on my part is irrelevant. As I said earlier, feel free to offer specific evidence of factual errors on my part. See, 1+1 always equal 2, no matter how "biased" the person stating this fact is.

- that you don't like the effect/time dice mechanic. The autofire rules are just something you have found as a convenient stick. This is why when people take your auto-fire complaint seriously, and provide you with a specific solution for it, you dismiss it out of hand.

A complete misrepresentation of my position. I may have to report you.

I rejected the "fix" because it (a) was more fussy than the original system; and (b) introduced equally dubious outcomes. Did you miss my post on this?

You also have introduced potentially worse problems. As the player's choice of die rises (from last to second to last to third to last, etc.) hits become nearly automatic, and the average number of hits goes up dramatically. With multiple dice, the odds of rolling at least one high number become nearly automatic. And if a "5" is the timing die, then 2/3 of the shots will hit on average, assuming no modifiers. If a mere +1 is added, 5/6 shots will hit.

Given a choice, I'd keep the original system -- it's no more broken than this idea, but at least its less fussy.

What you want, purely, is to ditch the effect/time dice mechanic entirely.

Are you just now figuring this out? Gee...I thought I'd always been pretty clear that I didn't like the mechanic. Hate it with a passion, actually.

<scratches head> Hard to see how you could have missed that point until just now.

Anyhow, factual assertions speak for themselves. And I think I've been pretty clear distinguishing my opinions from factual assertions.

<snip>

We know it works through the experiences we've had.

Then why are you still bawling me out about this?

 

[Supplement Four]

We know it works through the experiences we've had.

Save your breath, TBeard. The 2-3 "Faithful" on this forum won't let you get away with constructive critcism of the MGT system.

Same thing happened to me. I pointed out a flaw. The 2-3 Faithful posted to death until I just threw up my hands and said, "Fine, keep your its-good-enough game and forget trying to reach for greatness."

If they're happy with milktoast, then let 'em eat milktoast.

 

[tbeard1999]

We know it works through the experiences we've had.

Save your breath, TBeard. The 2-3 "Faithful" on this forum won't let you get away with constructive critcism of the MGT system.

Same thing happened to me. I pointed out a flaw. The 2-3 Faithful posted to death until I just threw up my hands and said, "Fine, keep your its-good-enough game and forget trying to reach for greatness."

If they're happy with milktoast, then let 'em eat milktoast.

Thanks for the warning. But if this is the best they can do, they must've lost some steps since you engaged them. I mean, how can you take seriously someone who objects to my stating that "in my opinion, the T/E system is broken"? Next thing you know, I'm gonna be reported for heresy and blasphemy...

Hey...maybe I can get back in their good graces by denouncing you as a heretic...

 

[captainjack23]

We know it works through the experiences we've had.

Save your breath, TBeard. The 2-3 "Faithful" on this forum won't let you get away with constructive critcism of the MGT system.

Same thing happened to me. I pointed out a flaw. The 2-3 Faithful posted to death until I just threw up my hands and said, "Fine, keep your its-good-enough game and forget trying to reach for greatness."

If they're happy with milktoast, then let 'em eat milktoast.

Thanks for the warning. But if this is the best they can do, they must've lost some steps since you engaged them. I mean, how can you take seriously someone who objects to my stating that "in my opinion, the T/E system is broken"? Next thing you know, I'm gonna be reported for heresy and blasphemy...

Hey...maybe I can get back in their good graces by denouncing you as a heretic...

Guys....you both have much better things to do than form a martyrs club.

Most of the "faithful", I'm guessing, agree or disagree, and move on. So if a few constantly threadcrap you, report them, and move on. Or just move on and ignore them. I don't agree with either of you 100%, but as I've said, its a playtest.
This is a venue to bring it up in.

And to the "faithful", I'll note that I've disagreed publicly with both posters over these issues and not gotten into a shouting match*.
Okay ? Tbeard thinks this is a problem, a big one. I very strongly disagree. Tbeard numbers' are right. Perhaps his use or interpretation of of the analysis is his own idiosyncratic opinion, and possibly it's misguided, but so what ? I may be wrong too.

There comes a point where you just need to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to agree with you if you are discussing "I like vs You like" and might not even like you. So, move on and stop arguing. All of you will survive, even if the others disagree, trust me.

 

[tbeard1999]

Guys....you both have much better things to do than form a martyrs club.

Thanks for the concern, but please don't confuse ridicule with martyrdom.

 

[Se Chris]

You know what? There's nothing useful going on in this thread any more. Locked.