Who actually uses the multiplicative Modifiers from Powers?

[Yako]

You have to use the scatter rules, too, but that's true of semi-auto grenade launchers. I don't think it actually says how scatter interacts with autofire, but if you treat Rcl as a penalty to-hit for each shot after the first, the results make perfect sense.

Umh, I don't think that is really appropriate...
Explosives or area effects don't really miss, they just go off at a certain distance.
especially if it is a grenade launcher, which I think shoots more in a ballistic curve than in a straight line, you'd effectively have the big majority of all your shots hitting their target.
Normal rapid fire is already pretty abusable but with that, you could do tons of damage way too cheaply.

What I think does not make sense is combining the game mechanics of rapid fire and area attack, I think they just don't mesh at all.
You'd have to break the rather elegant approach of resolving rapid fire in a single attack in favour of making an attack with each shot to get the scatter rules into the mix in the first place AND you'd have to make a very steep cost adjustment as well.
Rapid fire ends up costing 1% for each extra shot.
Even when you use purely multiplicative modifiers, you'd end up with a grand bargain.effectively, you can bombard a huge area with cheap bombs.

And the point remains, emanation rapid fire does not work mechanically at all.
Emanation has no attack roll.

Regarding ignores DR:

well, my point was, that it can be point efficient on small attacks, but most of the time gets trumped by just increasing base damage to blaze through the DR.
Sorry if that was unclear, I just wanted to say that even with low damage I see it as not that useful, at least on an innate attack (afflictions of course can make use of it, even though they usually do better with the proper malediction)

Regarding Rapid fire:

Umh, I have no idea what flamer autofire rules are, but I think you have to explain to me how a rapid fire ability was not extremely efficient, unless you forced him to always stay at the bottom of the rate of fire margins.
Granted, rapid fire truly does deserve fully multiplicative modifiers, but, no, when I look at stuff like cyclic, sense based, certain maledicition builds and most of the cosmic enhancements, I don't really want to go there without some major overhauling.

If you use multiplicative modifiers, you basically have to sign the proclamation that every enhancement over +100% is crassly underpriced and make a very clear understanding of which modifiers should be grouped and which not. For example, does each level of area effect count as x1,5, or do you first add them up and then multiply?

Multiplicative Modifiers from Powers at least have rather good overlap...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Yako

especially if it is a grenade launcher, which I think shoots more in a ballistic curve than in a straight line, you'd effectively have the big majority of all your shots hitting their target.

Not significantly better than any other HMG, IME.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Yako

Are there any real major issues which pop up?

There are some issues, but I wouldn't consider them major.

Do you think Multiplicative Modifiers deserve to become the standard rule?

Yes, but modified a tad. Values lower than -80% would, instead of being discarded, be used to reduce the +% value prior to the point cost being calculated.

So:

50 points (+300%, -90%) would result in a final cost of [39] instead of the [40] the standard Multiplicative Modifiers would give. (Contrasted with the final cost of [155] the default rules would give.)

[dataweaver]

I use a slightly modified version of multiplicative modifiers. If the total limitations come to -80% or less, I use multiplicative modifiers as written. If the total exceeds that mark, I first use the excess to cancel out as much of the Enhancements as possible, but no more. Then I divide what's left by 5.

[Black Rose]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I use a slightly modified version of multiplicative modifiers. If the total limitations come to -80% or less, I use multiplicative modifiers as written. If the total exceeds that mark, I first use the excess to cancel out as much of the Enhancements as possible, but no more. Then I divide what's left by 5.

Ex-bloody-actly! This makes a lot of sense for me, since you get to keep some "benefit" from lots of limitations. I thought about doing something like "Max applied limitations of -80%, anything left over acts as additional limitations on the result. Ex: total of -120% on a 100-pt ability. Normally this would max out at -80%, or 20 pts. Here we hold on to the remaining -40%, and apply it to the 20 pt result, giving us 12 pts." Yours sounds very practical.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by Yako

Umh, I don't think that is really appropriate...
Explosives or area effects don't really miss, they just go off at a certain distance.
especially if it is a grenade launcher, which I think shoots more in a ballistic curve than in a straight line, you'd effectively have the big majority of all your shots hitting their target.

Partly, this is why I said "Area Effect should probably change the cost schedule of Rapid Fire". The dropoff per shot assumes missed shots are lost; when near misses are useful, it should stay at +40% longer, and drop off slower.

The other part is, you're likely to start hitting things far afield of the target :J In order to get that 1% per shot, your last shot is going to roll scatter with a -299 penalty if you're using a freaky superscience grenade launcher, and several times that for something launching actual grenades. Just how far are you from this target if you're using a low-powered lobbing grenade launcher?

Originally Posted by Yako

You'd have to break the rather elegant approach of resolving rapid fire in a single attack in favour of making an attack with each shot to get the scatter rules into the mix in the first place AND you'd have to make a very steep cost adjustment as well.

What? No, hence "if you treat Rcl as a penalty to-hit for each shot after the first". The first shot rolls scatter based on your attack roll as-is; the second shot is based on that same attack roll but with a -Rcl penalty; the third is based on that same attack roll but with a -2×Rcl penalty; etc.

Originally Posted by Yako

Umh, I have no idea what flamer autofire rules are, but I think you have to explain to me how a rapid fire ability was not extremely efficient, unless you forced him to always stay at the bottom of the rate of fire margins.

Basically, she missed a lot. Not with the first attack, sure, but except for one time when she shot down a door, she would've been just as effective with a mere ROF: 10, and usually ROF: 5 would've been plenty. He gave her ATR: 2, and she'd end up spending all three sub-turns hosing a target when he expected her to be able to use one burst. This also produced lots of collateral damage, preventing her from using it in urban terrain and chewing through cover the PCs needed more than their enemies.

Originally Posted by Yako

If you use multiplicative modifiers, you basically have to sign the proclamation that every enhancement over +100% is crassly underpriced

Only in conjunction with each other. Which… is pretty much what I've been saying.

Originally Posted by Yako

and make a very clear understanding of which modifiers should be grouped and which not. For example, does each level of area effect count as x1,5, or do you first add them up and then multiply?

That one I was worried about originally, but it turns out it's easy. Multiple levels of the same modifier are a single modifier(thus two levels of Area Effect is ×2), any modifier that requires another gets combined with it(thus Bombardment combines with Area Effect or Cone), and any that are "the same thing" combine(the most common example is Range: No ½D(+15%) combining with Increased Range or Reduced Range). Applying that to an arbitrary set of modifiers would be tricky, but GURPS modifiers apparently don't include those corner cases.

The only weird one is gadget lims, which I combine because they tend to require each other, and that tends to actually work because of differential enforcement. The gadget lims assume a degree of nonenforcement, but a hefty mix of gadget lims is likely to actually get enforced.

[Yako]

Originally Posted by Sunrunners_Fire

There are some issues, but I wouldn't consider them major.



Yes, but modified a tad. Values lower than -80% would, instead of being discarded, be used to reduce the +% value prior to the point cost being calculated.

So:

50 points (+300%, -90%) would result in a final cost of [39] instead of the [40] the standard Multiplicative Modifiers would give. (Contrasted with the final cost of [155] the default rules would give.)

Yes, that is exactly how I would do it as well.^^
It is minor enough I think not to be abusive.

Ex-bloody-actly! This makes a lot of sense for me, since you get to keep some "benefit" from lots of limitations. I thought about doing something like "Max applied limitations of -80%, anything left over acts as additional limitations on the result. Ex: total of -120% on a 100-pt ability. Normally this would max out at -80%, or 20 pts. Here we hold on to the remaining -40%, and apply it to the 20 pt result, giving us 12 pts." Yours sounds very practical.

...I think that would be a bit too much though... ^^ ()
If you apply the rest in anoher multiplicative step, thus making it like:

x: Limitation value expressed as decimal b: cost of the ability prior to applying limitations

c: final cost y: limitations in excess of the 80% limit as decimal

c=b*0,2*y

...which I think would be too much given how point efficient the multiplicative mods already are.

@Darekun:

Umh, okay, then I think you see why I am against combining those two under the standard rules? ^^ ()

Really, if you want to simulate such an effect, ust make a big area effect / explosion with high damage and then give it an armour divisor. Same effect (Lethal against targets without proper amour), much sounder mathematics.

I mean, you do see that you have to include new assumptions which clearly aren't covere din the rules and you also see that you'd suddenly have scatter way out of proportion, right?

Umh, wait, your player missed a lot with the rapid fire bonus at hitting?
Eh, okay, how would that not have been even worse with any other kind of attack?
I mean, once his character reaches the stage where rapid fire gives a bonus to hit, he effectively has one bonus hit for every point of hit bonus (if he has recoil 1). He'd have missed without the rapid fire, so, I think I don't quite see the problem...
and collateral damage...
well, true, you usually will be in danger of hitting anyone in his line of attack, but then again, that can be another enemy just as well.
Actually, the rules by default are rather generous for not giving you "extra spread" for hitting the wrong target when it is a rapid fire attack.
...and that character still has the ability to hit multiple targets or cover an area...
I mean, sure, if the player expected to always get lucky and score many extra hits but ended up with bad luck on the dice rolls, well, that happens, but it would have been even worse with a non rapid fiore attack without the hit bonus.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by Yako

Umh, okay, then I think you see why I am against combining those two under the standard rules? ^^ ()

What I was objecting to was the idea that it didn't make sense :J

Originally Posted by Yako

Really, if you want to simulate such an effect, ust make a big area effect / explosion with high damage and then give it an armour divisor.

Probably add Bombardment, too :J

Originally Posted by Yako

I mean, you do see that you have to include new assumptions which clearly aren't covere din the rules

Actually, I'm not sure how else to interpret the combination of existing rules. It's possible this is exactly how they're intended to interact.

Originally Posted by Yako

and you also see that you'd suddenly have scatter way out of proportion, right?

While we're on the subject of proportion, even Shadowrun's minigrenades wouldn't support man-packing a grenade launcher that can usefully sustain ROF: 300 attacks :P You'd be blowing 30kg of ammo per second. The whole thing is silly, yes, including the max scatter.

Originally Posted by Yako

Umh, wait, your player missed a lot with the rapid fire bonus at hitting?
Eh, okay, how would that not have been even worse with any other kind of attack?

ROF: 300 grants +8 to hit, for +300%. ROF: 10 grants +2 to hit, for +100%. +6 to Acc costs +30%. Even if you assume +1 to hit is twice the price of +1 to Acc, that'd be +160% and much less collateral damage vs +300%. +1 to hit would have to be +35% before ROF: 300 saturation fire would be a good deal, and even then it'll bring down the house.

He was having her Aim a lot to try to improve hit rates, but given how expensive the ability was, going with a "mere" +10 Acc probably would've let her afford another level of modified ATR, for two ROF: 10 Aimed salvos per second, each more than 50% better than her high-ROF salvos.

Even the ROF: 10 is a saturation-fire build, so I'm not saying Rapid Fire sucks. But high-ROF attacks are pretty realistic, and in reality they mainly get used for suppressive fire and area fire. (Well, realistic for serial attacks. They're pretty inaccurate at parallel attacks. You'd have to divide down Rcl well below 1, or something.)

Originally Posted by Yako

and collateral damage...
well, true, you usually will be in danger of hitting anyone in his line of attack, but then again, that can be another enemy just as well.

The problem with collateral damage was more trashing buildings; 200+ hits with her weapon sprayed across a building section would probably bring down the section. Even spread across three or four, there was a decent chance.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Darekun

(Well, realistic for serial attacks. They're pretty inaccurate at parallel attacks. You'd have to divide down Rcl well below 1, or something.)

What's does serial and parallel mean in this context?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

What's does serial and parallel mean in this context?

The same things they usually mean.



firing 9 bullets in serial fires 1 bullet at a time in succession, 9 times:

YOU:       - - - - - - - - -       VICTIM

Firing 9 bullets in parallel fires 9 bullets at once (a shotgun shell):

                             -     
                             -     
                             -     
                             -     
YOU:                         -     VICTIM
                             -     
                             -     
                             -     
                             -

Only they aren't in a cone, they're in a tight bunch. But hopefully you get the idea.