Will buy: Ultra-Tech 2 / Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Uh? Only thing I know of like that gives +1 to skill when firing rapidly, not a modification to Rcl.

The Kriss Vector was given a Rcl of 1 in Tactical Shooting. I think this was based on Hans' experience with the gun.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by lexington

The Kriss Vector was given a Rcl of 1 in Tactical Shooting. I think this was based on Hans' experience with the gun.

Exactly what I was referring to.

[vierasmarius]

Hmm... I feel like the way Rcl is handled could use some adjustments too. There's just too big a jump from Rcl 1 to Rcl 2. But that's a topic for another thread.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by apoc527

I think "threaten" is a little bit strong. [ . . . ]

The fact that this setup does not guarantee the destruction of the battlesuit is not the point. The point is that heavy sub-vehicular armour of TL9 is insufficient to be impervious to TL7 small arms (though with borderline TL8 ammo), even though the point of battlesuits is that they require something better than small arms.

The other point is that TS and HT provide options which should logically be available by TL8, but UT lists TL9+ options and some of them are markedly inferior, or do not provide equivalent utility. Very Rapid Fire (Short Burst) weapons would be an example.
Or the G-suits. Piloting some of the spaceships would require a G-suit, but apparently none of the UT suits provides pneumatic G-compensation for this purpose, even though inertial dampening fields are not something assumed to be available at the start of TL9.

Anyway, arguing about 'UT vs. HT' is an interesting topic, but somewhat tangential. I'm sorry for (starting/supporting - pick your choice) the derail of my own thread. Back to the issues of whether an update is feasible and desired . . .

[Joseph Paul]

I think one of the things I would rather see in a reworked UT is more on modifying weapons to fit the setting a GM wants to run. Perhaps providing a pessimistic, a neutral, and an optimistic scenario for weapons development. Discussion of what would lead to an under/over performing class of weapons and then what to change in the weapon tables to reflect that.

Going over the forums and finding examples of very different interpretations of equipment in UT and then clarifying what can and can't be done with it may prove profitable even if it comes down to all views being supportable, the consequences for a setting of picking one over the others, and how to implement it.

I would support gathering the Pyramid articles on Spaceships into one place to help in creating vehicles.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I think one of the things I would rather see in a reworked UT is more on modifying weapons to fit the setting a GM wants to run. Perhaps providing a pessimistic, a neutral, and an optimistic scenario for weapons development. Discussion of what would lead to an under/over performing class of weapons and then what to change in the weapon tables to reflect that.

Going over the forums and finding examples of very different interpretations of equipment in UT and then clarifying what can and can't be done with it may prove profitable even if it comes down to all views being supportable, the consequences for a setting of picking one over the others, and how to implement it.

Definitely. Though of course I would prefer if it were done under SJG's Quality Assurance, as opposed to someone I know little about. If I'm paying for it, that is.

[lexington]

I'd settle for simply have the assumptions behind UT's default weapons stated.

[Polydamas]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The fact that this setup does not guarantee the destruction of the battlesuit is not the point. The point is that heavy sub-vehicular armour of TL9 is insufficient to be impervious to TL7 small arms (though with borderline TL8 ammo), even though the point of battlesuits is that they require something better than small arms.

The other point is that TS and HT provide options which should logically be available by TL8, but UT lists TL9+ options and some of them are markedly inferior, or do not provide equivalent utility. Very Rapid Fire (Short Burst) weapons would be an example.
Or the G-suits. Piloting some of the spaceships would require a G-suit, but apparently none of the UT suits provides pneumatic G-compensation for this purpose, even though inertial dampening fields are not something assumed to be available at the start of TL9.

Its not uncommon for SF technology to be outmatched by actual TL 8 inventions. Look at Star Trek's phasers (much less effective than TL 6 firearms as combat weapons, although the stun, 'heat ray,' and high powered disintegration settings are cool), or most fictional computers before 1980. The logical conclusion is that such settings didn't go through our TL8 at all (and that they are what UL calls retro-tech).

Originally Posted by Joseph Paul

I think one of the things I would rather see in a reworked UT is more on modifying weapons to fit the setting a GM wants to run. Perhaps providing a pessimistic, a neutral, and an optimistic scenario for weapons development. Discussion of what would lead to an under/over performing class of weapons and then what to change in the weapon tables to reflect that.

I think that is key. UT and Magic should have both been set up as "here are some things which should fit in any setting, here are some sets of options that you can add to fit different genres," but Magic at least wasn't (I never bought it or UT but I have skimmed a friend's copy of Magic). Beam and gauss weapons don't seem to be a popular trope right now outside of settings with magictech energy storage.

[vicky_molokh]

Come to think of it, Tactical Shooting (or Tactical Shooty) should probably have a big influence on the revision too. I'm not talking about the more obscure optional rules, but rather things that would be equally at home in any campaign. Computerized sights, NAI-assisted Precision Shooting, Rcl 1 non-beam weaponry etc.

[Tzeentch]

The weapons seem a bit weak in UT because the design system that most of the weapons are built off of (or eyeballed with) was designed to be pretty universal (think expanded GURPS Vehicles) and thus did not scale wildly at TL9+. You should be able to build most of the published weapons using the first playtest draft design sequence if you still have that kicking around. Of course, some of the material was OBE (overtaken by events) after release, and books like GURPS Tactical Shooting make older firearms very powerful in the right hands, since they don't address ultra-tech enhancements.

Note that the Ultra-Tech version with the design systems exposed to tinkering was NOT LIKED and was in no small way responsible for the book going back to the "shopping cart" layout of High-Tech and Low-Tech. Well, there were other issues as well, but the very negative feedback during playtest put the total kibosh on "architecture" books with the exception of GURPS VDS.

A UT2 would certainly be interesting, but you might want to purchase books like GURPS Psi-Tech if you want to prove to Steven that such a project would actually make money :)