AS3.0 BETA 3

[Salvius]

Folks,

Here is the BETA 3 of AS3.0, which will be in effect during Convert-O-Rama. Please note that a FINAL 3.0 will be released after the event to encompass last minute changes and tweaks which come about from real-life experience.

Please print a copy of this immediately for yourself - there will be a lot going on Friday night and I might not be able to print more than a few copies.

Thank you to everyone who found errors and inconsistencies in BETA 2 - I think that you will all like the latest round of changes and tweaks. See you all this weekend!

>>>Vinny

[Alf Cunha]

**  Amazingly enough, there is only ONE thing I want to coment on (there are others but this one is the standout).

Marksmanship

Vinny and I discussed it very briefly today, but I still have my opposition to the way it stands right now. 

1)  Compared to every other combat skill (with the exception of Throwing, which is in the same boat) it does not have anywhere near the potency.  The reason for this was that theoretically you can't limit the attack bonus on firearms like you can on swords, etc.  I disagree - again, the accuracy of the weapon is only going to be so much (even the best sniper rifle is only as good as its user).  As for the damage the weapon can do, that would apply to its damage after a successful attack, not to the actual OR.  And as for the artillery-level weapons, Marksmanship wouldn't actually apply, since missiles, rockets, and cannons would be based on an area-effect calculation (they don't have the same pinpoint accuracy of a smaller firearm).


2)  The defensive skills are more than enough to counteract higher level marksmanship:

     Marksman 5:  +60 offense long range

     Martial Arts 5:  +120 defense long range
     Combat Flex 5:  +160 defense long range
     Shield Parry 5:  +100 defense long range

     and keep in mind all three of those can be stacked with each other


3)  if the worry is that Marksmanship is too powerful versus lower defenses, take a look at Mental:  Resist Mental comes nowhere near the Mental offense skills


Alf

[Jenny]

Please print a copy of this immediately for yourself - there will be a lot going on Friday night and I might not be able to print more than a few copies.

If anyone needs a copy, they can email me at karmakaze @ gmail tomorrow (before "close of business").  I have access to a rather nice digital copier/printer at work.  I couldn't do true bulk printing, but I could certainly bring a few spares for some printer-challenged folk.

[LucasJamison]

I overall disagree with the whole weapon bonus limitation - I know your reasons, I understand them, but I think your primary argument is irrelevant and the relevant one is wrong.

However, since it's your call, my disagreement, in turn, is irrelevant.

[Socket]

I think the cost difference helps to balance out the point difference.

Skill	Stat Req's	Skill Cost (1-5)	Total Cost
Marksmanship 5:	AGI 40, CUN 25	105	168
Marshall Arts 5:	AGI 75	200	274
Combat Flex 5:	AGI 50	150	199
Shield Parry 5:	AGI 20, CON 64	75	157

(And that's not including putting the necessary ENE points in, and each of the defensive skills has stat req's higher than Marksmanship.)

Except for Shield Parry, which how many people have that anyway and unless you have a Marshall Arts Sheild doesn't stack, it is much more expensive to get the defensive skills in question especially if you want to stack them.  (Exceptions to be had for Citadels and Areses)[/color]

[SigmaCaine]

I think I'm the only person in the game with shield parry. Jarrit had it, but I haven't met anyone else.

Do you know how hard it is to build a defensive character in this game? ;p

[Alf Cunha]

**  Actually, in 2.6 building defensively wasn't that hard, both Val and Seb were high-defense characters

[SigmaCaine]

I'm talking 3.0

[Alf Cunha]

I'm talking 3.0

**  In 3.0 it's difficult to build defensiveley in any way (whether LR, SR, or Mental) because it's a hugely offense-heavy game now

I overall disagree with the whole weapon bonus limitation - I know your reasons, I understand them, but I think your primary argument is irrelevant and the relevant one is wrong.

**  In what way? At present all weaponbs are going to have a limit of +40 (being that a weapon's accuracy is more dependent on the wielder than the weapon itself).  A weapon's damage may be increased beyond this:  a gun can have improved ammunition, and a sword can be 10' long (to use Tiny's example) - in both cases the CHANCE to his is unaffected, but the damage inflicted is greater.  I don;t see how a gun would be more accurate based on the weapon, as opposed to the user.

However, since it's your call, my disagreement, in turn, is irrelevant.

**  It's not my call, it's Vinny's.  So feel free to disagree because I definitely want to hear the argument from every side.

Marksmanship 5: AGI 40, CUN 25 105 168
Marshall Arts 5: AGI 75 200 274
Combat Flex 5: AGI 50 150 199
Shield Parry 5: AGI 20, CON 64 75 157

[size=8t]**  Ok, let's include everything:

     Marksman 5 (Agi 40, Ene 40, CUN 25, 75 AP):     +60 bonus for 180 points (overall cost-effectiveness: .33)
     Martial Arts 5 (Agi 75, Ene 75, 200 AP):    +280 bonus for 350 points (overall cost-effectiveness: .80)
     Combat Flex 5 (Agi 50, Ene 50, 150 AP):    +200 bonus for 250 points (overall cost-effectiveness: .80)
     Shield Parry 5 (Agi 20, Con 64, Ene 64, 75 AP):    +100 bonus for  223 points (overall cost-effectiveness .45)

    The reason I chose level 5 is because all the defensive skills grant LR defens by that level.  Looking at the numbers now, I still say Marksman and Throwing are underpowered comparatively (though Shield Parry should be better too).  Now let's compare with the other offensive skills:

    Edged 5 (Agi 80, Ene 80, 75 AP):    +120 bonus for 235 points (overall cost-effectiveness: 0.5)
    Blunt 5 (Str 80, Con 40, Ene 80, 75 AP):    +120 bonus for 275 points (overall cost-effectiveness: .44)
    Cleaving 5 (Agi 45, Con 25, Ene 45, 75 AP):    +63 bonus for 190 points (overall cost-effectiveness: .33)

**  Looking at these numbers it seems defense is actually not that difficult to do compared to offense IF you have the points.  The ones who really benefit here are Ares and Citadel ... they become damn near unstoppable thanks to the free (now unrestricted) levels.  Also, keep in mind that the latter skills can also be stacked with Focus Attack (something Marksman & Throiwing do not benefit from).


     Overall, I think a bullet should be harder to dodge that a club, the system does not reflect that.  The other weapon skills have geometric progressions (+10, +20, +40, + 80), while Marksman is arithmetic (+15, +30, +45, +60).  In time Marksman becomes ineffective as far as cost.  By the time you get to, say, level 4 Marksman - you can either gain the +15 attack bonus OR gain a +10 to both OR and DR (and +2 Init, +10 Flee, +10 Pickpocket).[/size]

[LucasJamison]

**  In what way? At present all weaponbs are going to have a limit of +40 (being that a weapon's accuracy is more dependent on the wielder than the weapon itself).  A weapon's damage may be increased beyond this:  a gun can have improved ammunition, and a sword can be 10' long (to use Tiny's example) - in both cases the CHANCE to his is unaffected, but the damage inflicted is greater.  I don;t see how a gun would be more accurate based on the weapon, as opposed to the user.

The way the system is built, differentiation between "to hit" and "damage", though it exists in places, is kind of tacked on after the fact, and not an inherent part of the mechanics.  From your statements, it looks like the intent of this unnecessary complication is some sort of realism, which I tend to like in games, except that I've recently discovered something I like even more - internal consistency.  As the game is not a good reflection of the real world, trying to force it to be in places just seems... out of keeping.

The other big reason I could see for cappiing would be to avoid having the whole "the Items make the Avatar" problem, where in the Items in play are more varied, complex, and powerful than any of the Character Cards, and it comes down less to who you are, than what you own, to decide conflicts.  Except that I don't see how a +40 OR cap on weapons fixes this problem.

     Overall, I think a bullet should be harder to dodge that a club, the system does not reflect that.  The other weapon skills have geometric progressions (+10, +20, +40, + 80), while Marksman is arithmetic (+15, +30, +45, +60).  In time Marksman becomes ineffective as far as cost.  By the time you get to, say, level 4 Marksman - you can either gain the +15 attack bonus OR gain a +10 to both OR and DR (and +2 Init, +10 Flee, +10 Pickpocket).[/b][/size]

But why should that be?  I mean, yeah, IRL, guns are the big kid on the block, but in the Nexus, seems to me like it's all just energy given different forms, right?  So, what is inherently more bad-ass about the bullet-shaped chunk of existence than the club-shaped one?

And don't forget, marksmanship is essentially any projectile weapon, so it's not just bullets, but arrows, anything you can fit in a slingshot, blow darts, and Fusion Attack.

I think what bothers me most about this all is the overreliance on realism as an argument for changes to system mechanics in a game which doesn't even attempt true-to-life realistic mechanics.  This is a departure from some of my prior thinking on the subject.

[FoxMcCloud]

  I don;t see how a gun would be more accurate based on the weapon, as opposed to the user.

Your getting confused between accuracy of a weapon and the abillaty of a user to hit something. although accuracy relys heavaly on the users skill a decent gun can make a difference too.

its alot easyer to down someone from half a mile away with a Browning A-Bolt then a musket

[Alf Cunha]

The way the system is built, differentiation between "to hit" and "damage", though it exists in places, is kind of tacked on after the fact, and not an inherent part of the mechanics. 

**  Overall, this is true, but all the the armor I have created under item creation rules reduces damage as opposed to increasing DR (the reason for this is to account for weapons and effects that do not deal damage, like a taser, and would ignore armor).  Also, because I consider damage bonus a seprate entity fom OR bonus it is possible to purchase damage enhancement for weapons at a lower cost than OR enhancement (because the damage bonus would be moot if the weapon doesn't hit the target).

Except that I don't see how a +40 OR cap on weapons fixes this problem.

**  One of the few things Vinny and I have agreed on () is the fact that weapons should be limited as to how powerful they can be.  Aside from the 'weapons make the avatar' argument, the other problem is stacking immensely high skill numbers and immensely high item bonuses.  Also, while basing things in realism may not always work it is a part of the game, especially where terran avatars are concerned (thus the reason Sebastian cannot have First Aid / CPR as a skill, because it simulates Sustain Life).  We do need a basis for 'normal physics' or what have you, even though those rules can be broken at times by magic or advanced tech.

although accuracy relys heavaly on the users skill a decent gun can make a difference too.

**  Yes, a decent gun DOES make a difference, hence the bonus that can go as high as +40 - making someone who just learned how to fire a gun (Marksman I) almost as good as someone who's an expert (Marksman IV)

its alot easyer to down someone from half a mile away with a Browning A-Bolt then a musket

**  Again, which is the reason why we have different bonuses and different ranges for weapons

.