Oh come on,get a grip - weapon dmg silly

[Delerium]

I don't know what the authors were thinking.

Fusion Pistol TL 17 Average dmg per shot 16

Fusion Pistol TL 18 Average dmg per shot 18 (12.5% more)


A whole new super-duper teach level and guns leap up a mighty 12.5%??




TL 18 Matter Disintegrator.

With a 2d6 dmg (effectively ignores armour).
Average 7 dmg

Might be able to disintegrate a cat.



TL 7 Bow 2d6 dmg

Same damage as a TL 18 Disintegrator on an unarmoured target




bleh


Has anyone got any sensible hi-tech options for weapons such as these?

 

[Twi'lekk_Den-keeper]

With the matter disintegrator just have the target make an endurance check. If he fails, he's dead. But make it ranged (shotgun).

 

[EDG]

With the matter disintegrator just have the target make an endurance check. If he fails, he's dead. But make it ranged (shotgun).

A disintegrator doesn't care what your endurance is. If you're hit, you disintegrate - the only thing that can stop that is a personal nuclear damper.

 

[AKAmra]

I don't know what the authors were thinking.

Fusion Pistol TL 17 Average dmg per shot 16

Fusion Pistol TL 18 Average dmg per shot 18 (12.5% more)


A whole new super-duper teach level and guns leap up a mighty 12.5%??




TL 18 Matter Disintegrator.

With a 2d6 dmg (effectively ignores armour).
Average 7 dmg

Might be able to disintegrate a cat.



TL 7 Bow 2d6 dmg

Same damage as a TL 18 Disintegrator on an unarmoured target




bleh


Has anyone got any sensible hi-tech options for weapons such as these?

If you use the optional rule, then 7 damage can drop your average opponent in one hit.

The Endurance check suggestion is a reasonable houserule if you want to beef-up the effect of the disintegrator in your game, others may follow.

Generally, I think that "one hit and your dead - nothing you can do about it", doesn't really fit into most RPG games. It may be "realistic" but not fun.

The RAW is the RAW, houseruling to taste is standard fare in RPGs. If this post in essence is saying "this rule is a game breaker for me", then don't bother posting and just walk away (I'm presuming that this is not the case since the OP did post the question).

 

[Shiloh]

A whole new super-duper teach level and guns leap up a mighty 12.5%??

Did firearm damage jump 12.5% (per round) between TL7 and TL8? (or between 6 and 7 if you don't think we're into 8 yet).

TL 18 Matter Disintegrator.

TL 7 Bow 2d6 dmg

Same damage as a TL 18 Disintegrator on an unarmoured target

Did you read the "fluff text"? The Disintegrator is designed for use on heavy-armoured troops. If they're not wearing any armour, use a rifle, or a laser. 7 average damage is a sight more than *none*.




bleh


Has anyone got any sensible hi-tech options for weapons such as these?[/quote]

 

[Tathlum]

One good thing about the stats being the same in CT, MT, T4 and MGT is you could use another versions weapons.

T4 sucked but emperors arsenal for it rocked, is available in pdf from drivethroughrpg and easily usable with MGT. T4 stuff was uilt to a design system so can seem more internaly consistant than systems than "eyeball" weapon damages.

An option for your consideration.

 

[Delerium]

"Did you read the "fluff text"? The Disintegrator is designed for use on heavy-armoured troops. If they're not wearing any armour, use a rifle, or a laser. 7 average damage is a sight more than *none*.


Yes I did.

And that is why it's ridiculous


7 damage is pathetic. By TL 18 you can imagine the kind of implants they'd have for increasing life anyway.

I assume those kinds of TLs have potential for massive dmg. Surely its 1000s of years in the future. 7 is not massive, its comical.

They could increase the damage of all these weapons if they had done their job properly and increased armour to match or force shields/screens or whatever. Especially as force screens would help vs such weapons in particular.

Anyone who seriously thinks that an increase of 12.5% damage for a whole new era needs to go back to school.


Praise where praise is due, and Mongoose are cool for trying to update a classic game for us all to use today, but the number of sicophants on this board adds nothing to this games progress. If you don't let Mongoose know, they will become another Wizards/TSR and just turn out trash after trash. You want that? If you do, then just accept anything you are given like beggars.

Mercenary, for the most-part, is a pig's ear and the writers needs a kick up the arse.

Right . I've said my piece. Won't say it again.

 

[EDG]

Praise where praise is due, and Mongoose are cool for trying to update a classic game for us all to use today, but the number of sicophants on this board adds nothing to this games progress. If you don't let Mongoose know, they will become another Wizards/TSR and just turn out trash after trash. You want that? If you do, then just accept anything you are given like beggars.

Mercenary, for the most-part, is a pig's ear and the writers needs a kick up the arse.

Right . I've said my piece. Won't say it again.

Tell you what - if you think you can do better, then do something constructive and write something better. I'm pretty sure that the OGL would let you do that.

Though I am sick of people going on about Mongoose "sycophants" or "fanboys". I've not seen any evidence of that at all, but I've seen a lot of evidence of bitter, twisted, Mongoose HATERS going on about how they could do better and yet who do nothing to prove it. Not that you're necessarily one of those, Delerium (though I'm not hopeful given some of your comments) - but don't fall into the same trap that they do. If you're going to be a critic, at least do it constructively.

This is one of Mongoose's first books for Traveller, for crying out loud. They're still finding their feet when it comes to the fanbase, and while some criticism is justified there's no need to get personal about it and bitch about the writers. Maybe some mistakes were made, maybe more research could have been done, but most of the criticism of Mercenary is way overblown and not remotely constructive IMO. I'm certainly not unconditionally leaping to their defence and saying all the criticism is unjustified - but people who have a more balanced viewpoint sure as hell don't deserve the "sycophantic fanboy" label that some of the haters give them.

 

[Travellingdave]

I can see Delerium's point, though. Previous editions (by and large -- I won't say there aren't exceptions) had a much more scientific feel (IMHO) than some of the new tech listed in Mercenary. Weapon stats seemed truly researched by war-gamers/simulationalists as compared to created by writers (again IMHO).

A thoughtful read-through of the tech (particularly the artillery) in Mercenary reveals a somewhat non-technical approach that seems in direct contrast to previous incarnations of the game. I can cite more specifics, but the frag cannon and the high-tech mortar descriptions stand out as reading more like 40K weapons than Traveller ones.

Now, I really like the new Mongoose Traveller and I'm definitely not a HATER. I'm also very comfortable revising the weapon stats to fit my vision since I've been involved with this game for a while, but I can understand why others might not be.

And I do NOT object to non-OTU tech in Traveller products, either. I'd love to have optional tech to include as I see fit. I'd just like it to be labeled optional or expanded or non-OTU (or conversely, label all OTU tech appropriately). I just hope future products are a bit more careful in their concepts and terminology to maintain the illusion of technical credibility that I feel has been an earmark of the Traveller line.

And I'll keep buying the books because I want to see this line soar!

 

[JF Baston]

By the way, are TNE weapons compatible :?:
If it's the case, weapons could be designed with "Fire Fusion & Stell".

Else you can use "Guns Guns Guns" by BTRC.

 

[EDG]

I guess Mongoose are learning that Traveller fans are picky and have somewhat high standard in certain respects (weapons/military realism is one of those I guess. Which is funny since many aspects of the game aren't realistic, and the ones that have previously pretended to be realistic (like worldgen) have been far from it. But MGT is a bit better on that front at least).

But let's not crucify them for Mercenary. It's got flaws, sure. But hopefully they've learned some lessosn from it and will make High Guard better.

 

[Allensh]

No matter what criticisms may be valid, I immediatley discount the criticizer when he or she resorts to insults and nastiness to get their point across. Because that says to me that the point itself must be assumed by the criticizer to not be sufficient, so it has to be bolstered with aggressive nastiness.

In oother words, if you want to be taken seriously, give thoughtful and constructive criticism, not insults and belligerence.

Allen

 

[weasel_fierce]

I can see Delerium's point, though. Previous editions (by and large -- I won't say there aren't exceptions) had a much more scientific feel (IMHO) than some of the new tech listed in Mercenary. Weapon stats seemed truly researched by war-gamers/simulationalists as compared to created by writers (again IMHO).

I assume you mean everything but classic traveller here

 

[Delerium]

Praise where praise is due, and Mongoose are cool for trying to update a classic game for us all to use today, but the number of sicophants on this board adds nothing to this games progress. If you don't let Mongoose know, they will become another Wizards/TSR and just turn out trash after trash. You want that? If you do, then just accept anything you are given like beggars.

Mercenary, for the most-part, is a pig's ear and the writers needs a kick up the arse.

Right . I've said my piece. Won't say it again.

Tell you what - if you think you can do better, then do something constructive and write something better. I'm pretty sure that the OGL would let you do that.

Though I am sick of people going on about Mongoose "sycophants" or "fanboys". I've not seen any evidence of that at all, but I've seen a lot of evidence of bitter, twisted, Mongoose HATERS going on about how they could do better and yet who do nothing to prove it. Not that you're necessarily one of those, Delerium (though I'm not hopeful given some of your comments) - but don't fall into the same trap that they do. If you're going to be a critic, at least do it constructively.

This is one of Mongoose's first books for Traveller, for crying out loud. They're still finding their feet when it comes to the fanbase, and while some criticism is justified there's no need to get personal about it and bitch about the writers. Maybe some mistakes were made, maybe more research could have been done, but most of the criticism of Mercenary is way overblown and not remotely constructive IMO. I'm certainly not unconditionally leaping to their defence and saying all the criticism is unjustified - but people who have a more balanced viewpoint sure as hell don't deserve the "sycophantic fanboy" label that some of the haters give them.

Nothing annoys me more than people that focus on 1 part of a post. My post contained both very complimentary statements and criticism.
How much more balanced do you want?

Why must you endlessly defend a faulty product?
I was talking about Mercenary ONLY . Don't make assumptions, it's doomed to failure given just snippets of text on a forum.

I have said elsewhere on this forum I am enjoying Mongoose's resurrection of this game.

As for "write better yourself," that is not what I am paid for. It is what they are paid for and its what I have paid for. And overall I am happy to part with my cash. Or I wouldn't of bought the whole range of Traveller products ,not the mention hundreds of pounds worth of their other products.

Is it not possibly anymore to point out flaws in a product only to get endlessly flamed for doing so?


As for these mongoose haters. Where are these then? I have never seen one yet. Seems odd to me people would bother signing to a forum if they essentially didn't like something. We are all here because we play it, no?

 

[Tathlum]

Do you genuinely think your posting in this thread has been fair and balanced?

Nothing annoys you more than focusing on one point in a post, yet you ignore whole posts of advice on alternatives and instantly dismiss anything that you don't agree with as fanboyism.

You accuse EDG of endlessly defending the product and warn him against assuming too much based on one post. Yet EDG must hold some sort of record for the amount of times he has questioned unrealistic tropes, science, design and technologies in Traveller over the years.

As for being flamed for pointing out flaws, from where I sit, you appear to be doing the majority of flaming in this thread. You even flamed Wizards of the Coast who have absolutely nothing to do with Traveller.

As for the Mongoose haters, let me put your mind at rest, they exist. While hate is far too strong a word, I have been disappointed in Runequest Slaine, Conan second edition, the dropping of SST and the presentation of Traveller and the return to a 2d6 format for it. The last thing I bought was Runequest Slaine when it came out and it remains unused. I joined as a huge fan of Mongoose and wait for what I would see as a return to form.
They were plenty visable during playtesting.

Plenty of people agree with what you are trying to say. It is the way you are saying it that is alienating people.
Drop the hyperbole, tone down the passion, present your case and listen to the counter-points from others and you will get much farther, and gain more respect and support.

Or don't, entirely up to yourself.

By the way, are TNE weapons compatible :?:
If it's the case, weapons could be designed with "Fire Fusion & Stell".

Else you can use "Guns Guns Guns" by BTRC.

Roughly, yes. Damage is dealt in dice roughly (If I remember right) about 2d for a pistol, 4 for a TL 10 etc rifle, @6 for a gauss rifle. Armour absorbs dice of damage, so you could take armour from TNE or divide MGT armour values by 3. Amunition could effect the amount of dice armour reduces, dependant on range.
You generaly end up rolling 1-4d6 damage. Which won't break the Traveller stats, in my opinion.
It is doable but a little more complex than it needs to be. And you don't get an identical result to MGT.

 

[EDG]

Nothing annoys me more than people that focus on 1 part of a post. My post contained both very complimentary statements and criticism. How much more balanced do you want?

Of the books? Sure, it was balanced.
But then you had go and to throw in that snipe about sycophants, and that isn't a balanced comment.

Why must you endlessly defend a faulty product?
I was talking about Mercenary ONLY . Don't make assumptions, it's doomed to failure given just snippets of text on a forum.

See, that's what I mean. I'm not "endlessly defending a faulty product". EVERY RPG product is "faulty" in some way - but that doesn't make them unusable or unplayable. Merc has some faults, sure, but to overlook them and use the stuff that does work isn't being a "sycophant". Most of us are capable of fixing perceived rules problems when we use the books in our own games.

As for "write better yourself," that is not what I am paid for. It is what they are paid for and its what I have paid for.

I'm just pointing out that the means exists for you to rectify the problems you perceive and to make it available to everyone else. Heck, you can just rectify it for your own gaming group. But I've seen a lot of criticism of Mongoose products by people who seem to think they can do better... but who don't do a damn thing to prove it.

Is it not possibly anymore to point out flaws in a product only to get endlessly flamed for doing so?

Oh, come off it. You're not being "endlessly flamed". I even said in my own post that Merc wasn't perfect. But it does get silly when people start harping on about how they're being oppressed by sycophants or fanboys whenever someone merely points out that their criticisms may be a little overstated.

As for these mongoose haters. Where are these then? I have never seen one yet. Seems odd to me people would bother signing to a forum if they essentially didn't like something. We are all here because we play it, no?

They're mostly on other forums (well, AN other forum), because they got booted off this one. But they're still part of the Traveller community.

 

[Travellingdave]

I guess Mongoose are learning that Traveller fans are picky and have somewhat high standard in certain respects (weapons/military realism is one of those I guess. Which is funny since many aspects of the game aren't realistic, and the ones that have previously pretended to be realistic (like worldgen) have been far from it.

Yeah, I like at least a handwave to science in my Space Opera. It's always been one of the things that has set Traveller apart from Star Wars for me. Traveller always felt like they did some research (even when they turned out to be wrong) yet didn't bog down in mechanics. Note that I acknowledge that this is strictly an illusion of scientific credibility. I wouldn't use Traveller to teach an astrophysics course. And yes, since GDW started as a wargaming shop, their focus on military tech minutia made many of us feel all warm and fuzzy.

I assume you mean everything but classic traveller here Wink

The original CT Mercenary was quite good for its time even if it's dated now. Don't ask me to defend specifics, however. Let's just say that, at the time, it seemed like solid stuff. I hope to be able to say the same about MGT as it develops. And, no, I don't mind if they update some Traveller concepts to reflect current scientific trends.

 

[captainjack23]

<snip>And yes, since GDW started as a wargaming shop, their focus on military tech minutia made many of us feel all warm and fuzzy.

I assume you mean everything but classic traveller here Wink

The original CT Mercenary was quite good for its time even if it's dated now. <snip>

Yes, it was, and was pretty good at being a serious operations level suppliment for an RPG that worked pretty well. Strangely enough, I think it owes much of that to En Guarde -(an overlooked semi-rpg semi-wargame gem...)

And, to be fair, CT's handling of weapons was pretty good for it's time. IIRC, Boothill was about the closest competitor that dealt with firearms that could be researched.

Still, one could tell that Merc was truly from the heart of GDW's wargaming background -which, since this was...1978? pretty much where we all were from too.

It's just a shame that the chargen ratcheted things up so much on the RPG side.......ah well. All is better, now, right ?

 

[collins355]

It's just a shame that the chargen ratcheted things up so much on the RPG side.......ah well. All is better, now, right ?

(Continuing a fruitless quest to expose the flaw in this common complaint about Merc/High Guard/Scouts)

Only a real issue if you ignored two fundamental tenents of Traveller chargen...
the INT+EDU restriction on skills
the survival roll

I'm increasingly coming to the view that our group was the only one that ever rigorously enforced those rules... :wink:

 

[captainjack23]

It's just a shame that the chargen ratcheted things up so much on the RPG side.......ah well. All is better, now, right ?

(Continuing a fruitless quest to expose the flaw in this common complaint about Merc/High Guard/Scouts)

Only a real issue if you ignored two fundamental tenents of Traveller chargen...
the INT+EDU restriction on skills
the survival roll

I'm increasingly coming to the view that our group was the only one that ever rigorously enforced those rules... :wink:

Yeah, well, we were --teenage proto munchkins, so I suspect the survival roll got finessed LOTS, plus after the early editions it had an optional out short of death , if you recall.

That said, yes, the INT+EDU wasn't one we used (didn't see it ? Forgot it ? Ignored it ? ...been a while) BUT the issue was that even if we had been using it, it was way easier to generate high levels of individual skills -such as Pistol -5 , as well as fairly frequent stat advances(which don't count towards the INT+EDU Limit), rank advances, and decorations.

Perhaps it was the times, or the environment (mostly service kids and young servicement playing at the USO) but it seemed that everyone was a retired general with at least one 5 level skill, often a high noble, often an SEH recipient. With battle armor and a FGMP-15 in the trunk.

Don't get me wrong, though. Merc was very good; it wasn't that chargen was Broken, it just had a very, very munchkinable system, if and ONLY if you played that way. Which we, and I suspect lots of others , did, burned out, got better.

Ah those were the days -(cue song)
"Do you remember, when CT,
was just little books numbered one two three...."

-(stolen from somewhere on the net)