Damage Issues in v3.2

[tbeard1999]

I've just skimmed v3.2 of the playtest document and two things jump out at me (assuming I've read them correctly):

1. Given the incredibly high chance of getting a 5 or 6 on the effect die on typical rolls, weapon damage is gonna be far more predictable than I think is desirable (from a either a realism perspective or a dramatic perspective). For instance, a character with net modifiers of +2 (very easy to get) shoots an assault rifle at a target. 66% of the time, the effect die will be a 6. 15% of the time it will be a 5. If the player chooses to always allocate the best roll to damage, the chance of getting a 6 rises to a whopping 96% chance!
This means that the weapon will do exactly 16 ([2x6]+4) points of damage most of the time. This will not kill an average character, but will always knock out an average character. Cloth armor is nearly worthless—stopping 5 points only.

EDIT--I completely misread the burst fire rule. I still hate it, but it doesn't produce the outrageous effects I thought it did.

2. Why does a TL7 assault rifle do 33% more damage than a TL5 rifle? The assault rifle fires a lighter round (typically 5.56 x 45mm or 7.62 x 39mm) than the rifle (typically 7.62 x 63mm [.30-06] or 7.62 x 54mm). The rifle should have significantly higher penetration and do more damage (or at least equivalent damage) than than the assault rifle. Since MGT equates damage and penetration, the rifle should do more damage.

 

[Supplement Four]

I've just skimmed v3.2 of the playtest document and two things jump out at me (assuming I've read them correctly):

TBeard,

Why not post over at the Mongoose forum, where your comments are sure to be read by the MGT developers?

Of course, you'll get slammed by those already in love with the MGT system. I know I did (and I had a pretty fair point, I believe).

But, I think the MGT developers should be reading all this analysis you've done over the last month or so.

 

[tbeard1999]

TBeard,

Why not post over at the Mongoose forum, where your comments are sure to be read by the MGT developers?

Of course, you'll get slammed by those already in love with the MGT system. I know I did (and I had a pretty fair point, I believe).

But, I think the MGT developers should be reading all this analysis you've done over the last month or so.

I've posted it there as well. I just wanted to keep the COI folks in the loop as well. And I'm not overly worried about being slammed by fanboys. I can slam back if the need arises. Besides, this kinda stuff is math. If I'm wrong, they can show me how.

Unfortunately, Mongoose seems invested in a very defective base mechanic and an absurdly fussy combat system. Not a good sign. I'm not sure how I would have approached revising Traveller, but I'm certain I wouldn't have done it this way.

--Ty

 

[hunter]

I've posted it there as well. I just wanted to keep the COI folks in the loop as well.

Appreciated, as I'm not following the discussions there.

 

[sablewyvern]

I have similar issues with the basic damage mechanic, plus the fact that there is no differentiation between damage and penetration. Most of the people that have actually run combats don't seem to have major issues with it, though. (AK)aramis' preferred fix is to uncap the Effect die result, which goes some way to widening the spread.

 

[aramis]

Yes, Sable, I am the AkAramis over there, and Aramis here, since someone else took aramis over there.

 

[sablewyvern]

Yes, Sable, I am the AkAramis over there, and Aramis here, since someone else took aramis over there.

Huh. I had assumed +ak there and -ak here were the same; didn't know there was another -ak around. That would have confused me immensely.

 

[tbeard1999]

I have similar issues with the basic damage mechanic, plus the fact that there is no differentiation between damage and penetration. Most of the people that have actually run combats don't seem to have major issues with it, though. (AK)aramis' preferred fix is to uncap the Effect die result, which goes some way to widening the spread.

Isn't it interesting that nearly every use of the timing and effect mechanic requires all sorts of special rules to force some kind of rational result from the system?

That's usually a strong indication to me that the mechanic is defective and needs to be replaced.

But then, I just may not be as optimistic as others.

Sorry, but Aramis' fix does not address the complaint. The predictability is still there. A shooter can still calculate, with 66-95% certainty, what damage his weapon will do if he hits. And as an added bonus, his fix adds unreasonable lethality. Since it's pretty easy to get (say) a +3 to hit in MGT, the humble assault rifle will now typically do 22 points of damage. No flesh wounds in *that* combat system, eh? And cloth armor is hardly worth the effort. (And you can't fix that problem by simply making cloth armor tougher because you will make pistols worthless...)

Indeed, the designer of MGT has replaced the crappy, predictable and fussy original damage mechanic, with a fussier, more time consuming mechanic, that yields equally predictable results. Not exactly the definition of "improvement", it seems to me.

So while the earlier system was crap, it was less crap than the current one.

It appears to me that the designer has still not figured out that the standard d6 probability spread does not apply to timing/effect results. And if he hasn't figured that basic point out, he certainly hasn't figured out that the probability spread on timing/effect rolls changes dramatically as modifiers are applied to the system.

 

[sablewyvern]

I can't really argue for or against what aramis has done, since it's his modification and I don't recall all the specifics. He did seem fairly content with the results he was getting, though.

But then, I just may not be as optimistic as others.

Well, that's clearly the case to at least some extent. Only time will tell for sure if that optimism is misplaced.

For what it's worth, I agree with you entirely on damage predictability and the problem with burst fire effectively adding to penetration, and my own tweaks were designed in part to address both those problems (damage by number of dice, burst fire adding dice, armour modifying each die). I'm pretty sure my own armour rules are way too fiddly for many people, however.

 

[aramis]

Quite honestly, I've been complaining about the LACK of lethality in combat, Ty.

Nerfing it further is of no benefit, you can't kill someone with one shot as it stands now.

 

[tbeard1999]

Quite honestly, I've been complaining about the LACK of lethality in combat, Ty.

Nerfing it further is of no benefit, you can't kill someone with one shot as it stands now.

My complaint is not lack of lethality per se. That's really something that should be calibrated by the referee IMHO. What I object to is the fact that the firer can predict with as much as 95% accuracy, what the result of his hit will be. In addition, I object to the fact that there's really only one combat result possible (2 if you count "dead"). Your fix does not really change this. And it adds unvarying lethality, which I do not consider to be desirable or necessary.

Of course, that isn't your fault -- you're trying tp work within an existing system But even a talented car mechanic might be unable to fix a badly designed car.

While I'm sure that fanboys can find some way to argue that this is a feature and not a bug, I am not impressed.

The designer seems so in love with his timing/effect mechanic that he's willing to force a crappy damage system just so he can needlessly integrate it with the mechanic. Sigh.