And you still have not addressed the repeat factor--the fire rate of an AK-47.
I'm not using an AK, I'm using a MAK. One aimed shot a second for the amateur would be probably right.
You never answered my question. You wanted to see how hard I would fight to not get involved in Pearl Harbor. What would be difficult about making up some BS story and getting released? If you REALLY wanted to see how hard I would fight to not get involved, just tell me where I am before the MP gets there. You will see. Getting arrested and going to the base just means I got arrested and went to the base. It makes it no less difficult to not warn them. Make up a BS story, get released, problem solved. I don't see where the difficulty would be.
Releasing you from the situation wouldn't see how hard you would fight to stay uninvolved-quite the opposite, in fact. That would be making it easier for you to stay uninvolved.
MJ has been saying all along that a military base that's not on alert catches a trespasser, they're probably not going to hold him. Question him and let him go. That sounds right to me. What reason would they have to keep me there? So, they question me and let me go. How did going to the base prove anything?
It's like when I was in junior high. A teacher wanted me to join some debate club. The rule was "Miss two meetings and you're out for good." This was supposed to be incentive to stay. I went to enough meetings to figure out that the debate club was boring and I wasn't getting any school credit. Might as well have been asking me to voluntarily stay for detention once a week. I stopped going. "Miss two meetings and you're out for good" wasn't incentive to stay, it was a surefire way to ensure that they couldn't force me back in.
I'm not using an AK, I'm using a MAK.
If I am not mistaken, MAK 90 is an AK 47 variant with a thumb hole stock and it is made from China. If it is Russian made then the name would probably be different.
I also found that MAC 90 can refer to either MAK 90 or AK 47 but mainly MAK 90 that is made from China.
*****
MAK 90
Rate of fire: 40 rds/minute
Effective range: 400m
Maximum range: 2000m
The above rate of fire is probably the practical rate of fire.
Source:
http://www.ak-47.us/Article_Detail.php?g=content1200127199
If I am not mistaken, MAK 90 is an AK 47 variant with a thumb hole stock and it is made from China. If it is Russian made then the name would probably be different.
I also found that MAC 90 can refer to either MAK 90 or AK 47 but mainly MAK 90 that is made from China.
I got into this with Adam in the Pearl Harbor world. For my purposes, a semi-auto AK is a MAK 90. The only difference between a MAK 90 and a semi-auto AK 47 is that the semi-auto AK-47 doesn't have a thumbhole stock, and isn't made in China. As far as rate of fire and whatnot, it's exactly the same gun. Which is easier to type out though? MAK 90 or Semi-auto AK? So, from now on, the term MAK 90 just means "Semi-Auto AK" regardless of what the stock would look like or where it was manufactured. Neither of those has any bearing whatsoever on its effectiveness as a weapon, so let's just make the semantics easy to remember.
Two
Woke up with it in my head. Whether I warn them of the attack or not, I am indisputably involved in the scenario the minute the MP pulled up. Whether I warn them, whether I crash the jeep, whether I dance a jig on a general's desk, I AM INVOLVED!!!!! There were plenty of ways to make me aware of where and when I was WITHOUT forcing me to become involved. It's meaningless involvement, it's involved as an observer, whatever you want to call it, but I was involved nonetheless. I don't know why that's so difficult for you people to understand, but it's the truth. Suspend my game if you really need to MJ, but I think deep down inside, you know I'm right.
For my purposes, a semi-auto AK is a MAK 90.
If you want a semi-auto AK with a bayonet, made in year 1990 and from Russia, "AKM 90" would be the proper name although just "AKM" or "AKM 47" would also do the job.
*****
a lot of other questions at issue concerning the M-16.
rifle 10':50':200':800':+1/8' RF6 dangerous Magazine Capacity reload 0:18
I think the maximum repeat factor for the above M16 is 6x9=54 bullets.
You use the grenade launcher repeat factor to calculate it before which is maybe why you felt weird about it.
Maximum practical rate of fire for M16 is 150 rpm which would make the RF for normal people at 16 to 17 although I think a normal person could empty a magazine in that minute if that person uses auto mode which would give that person at least RF 30.
If minimum reload time is 18/9=2 seconds then it would be possible to fire 30x9=270 bullets.
Find P given A=2, F=950, M=30.
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*roundup[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]/60],
M*rounddown[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]+M]
R=(F-M)/(M+FA/60)=2760/185=14.9
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*15/60],M*14+M]
P=comparehigher[475,450]
P=475
If that person can reload the M16 in 2 seconds then if the fire rate is 950 rpm, then that person could practically fire 475 rpm which would make the RF be from 52 to 53.
Find P given A=2, F=600, M=30.
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*roundup[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]/60],
M*rounddown[(F-M)/(M+FA/60)]+M]
R=(F-M)/(M+FA/60)=570/50=11.4
P=comparehigher[rounddown[F-FA*12/60],M*11+M]
P=comparehigher[360,360]
P=360
If that person can reload the M16 in 2 seconds then if the fire rate is 600 rpm, then that person could practically fire 360 rpm which would make the RF be 40 which matches well with beginner repeat factor.
Cross posted with Max. MJ, you said that just because I live in the apartment complex, I'm not involved in the renter's association. This is true. However, I CHOOSE not to become involved in the renter's association. If someone from the renter's association came up here with a gun and said "Come to the meeting or else" most people would say I was forced to go to the meeting. Not you though. You'd say "You could have committed cold-blooded murder and spent the rest of your life in prison. You weren't FORCED to go to the meeting." I was involved the minute the MP pulled up, regardless of what happens after that. Warn them or not, I AM INVOLVED!!!!!!!
If it's that big of a thing to you, then stop saying you wanted to see if I would get involved, and start saying you wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack. I was involved when the MP pulled up. I was forced to get involved. Warning them of the attack would be my choice, but I was involved. Don't say "Would I get involved?" I was already involved. You wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack AFTER I was forced to get involved. You once said that being there doesn't have anything to do with being involved. No, you're wrong. I can be involved without warning them of the attack. I can be involved without doing anything. Talking to people there. That's getting involved. No matter what happens, I was forced to get involved. Stop saying that you wanted to see if I would get involved. I was forced to get involved. You wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack AFTER I was forced to get involved. Maybe a fine line, but it's one I'm going to draw.
You wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack after I was forced to get involved.
No, I did believe (past tense) that I was forced to get involved.
That was an explanation of my position, not an attempt at an argument. Besides, I'm allowed to have a difference of opinion without being delusional.
So it is not past tense. If you have difference in opinion then please accept it as it is. Trying to make an argument with it will only trap you in an endless loop which could worsen the situation.
To me, talking to ANYONE there would be involvement. Since the MP pulled up, I was forced to get involved. The question wasn't "Would I get involved?" the question was "Would I warn them of the attack?" I was forced to get involved. You didn't want to see if I would get involved, you wanted to see if I would warn them of the attack AFTER I was forced to get involved. And yeah, I know I said it was past tense, but it wasn't. It's really just semantics at this point, so I really don't see why you can't just go along with me.
If you just said "John, you were forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack." That would end it right now. Seriously, that's all I want. I was forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack.
And yeah, I know I said it was past tense, but it wasn't.
What made you think that was past tense in the first place?
Max, I'm psychotic. Things come in waves. One minute everything is cool and the world is fine, the next minute, I'm up in arms about something long forgotten. It's just the nature of the beast. It's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but still there.
Two
MJ, when I was in high school, a guy pulled a prank on me. I wanted him to apologize for it. I told him flat out "I don't even care if you mean it, I just want to hear you say it." He refused. He didn't believe he had done anything wrong. I hounded him about it relentlessly until he finally said "I'm sorry." I didn't know if he meant it, I didn't care if he meant it, I just wanted to hear him say it. That's really all I want here. For you to admit that I was forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack. I don't even care if you mean it. Lie to me if you have to. I just want you to say it.
I just want you to say it.
I know it would come to this. If it can solve the problem then probably it is the best course of action unless there is a battle of pride and willpower.
First, expecting someone to lie to make you feel better is absurd. Many people avoid lying unless they absolutely have to, this isn't a case like that.
Second, by stating "You were forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack" both takes away from the point which is no one is ever forced to do anything and also indicates blame against the referee of the game.
Third, there is a high likelihood that if that statement were used it'll be brought up in the future if you ever feel you were forced to be involved again. If you construct your definition of observed loosely enough you can't avoid being involved. The real question is whether or not the level of mandated involvement is substantially different from life. By living you have to observe and slightly affect everything. There is no workaround towards affecting the state of things where you are.
No, you don't understand. It's a psychotic episode. That's probably what it would take to finally kill the thing. I won't bring it back up in game, because I won't ever be forced to get involved again. I just watched "The Invention of Lying" it's a movie. Everyone tells the literal truth, and everyone takes you at your word. "What were you doing before I got here?" "Oh I just took a horrendous poop." and this is accepted. Until someone invents lying. It's interesting.
As far as lying just to make someone feel better, you do it all the time. Your mom says "How do I look?" you don't say "You look horrible Mom. You have bags under your eyes and your hair is messed up." No, you tell her "You look beautiful mom." See what I mean? It's just one of those things. Did you read what I put down about how this affected my psychosis? It's finally getting under control.
I'm just trying to kill a psychotic episode here. Work with me, will you?
(Doing Therapy)
I've read this entire thread yes, as well as the one this originated from. I didn't read any of the game that's being discussed, but that's so far back and archived I'm not sure I could find it even if I wanted to.
Also, yes, we all lie to make people feel better. That does not mean one likes to lie or that expecting someone to lie to make you feel better, despite their apparent feeling on the issue, is justified.
You also didn't address my second point, which was the most important of the three in my opinion. By saying the statement it undermines the ability level of the referee who ran the game and also undermines a very underlying principle here that everything is a choice in life. No one is arguing that the choices that would have needed to be made in order to have your ideal situation exist were easy. But isn't that the point? How far will you go, is it lying to someone, knocking them out, permanently injuring them, killing them? They're all degrees of willingness to pursue your own ideal. In this case one ideal (being less involved) was trumped by another ideal (not killing someone). To say "yes john, you're right, we see it your way now" undermines this idea as well as the referee.
I didn't even understand what you were saying. That does make more sense. Like I say, I'm just trying to kill a psychotic episode. I think that would finally do it. I don't know why, I just do. Selfish of me? Perhaps. I just want this thing to DIE!!!!!!!!!! Is that too much to ask to help your friend out of a jam?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't undermine anything or change anything at all. The only thing it would change (hopefully) would be that I could finally put this thing to rest and get it out of my head. I'm desperate to get this thing out of my head. That's it and that's all.
(Doing Therapy)
I understand your point John, but I don't lie to friends. It's derived from the fact that I'm exceedingly good at lying, and the way I make myself ok with that fact is that I know I don't lie to people that I get along with. That may seem bizarre to someone who doesn't know me in real life, but it's just how I am.
That said, you're not really looking for my statement anyway, I'm just offering what my impression is to your question of why people can't just lie to you about it.
I understand. The post where that was suggested was written in a moment of anger and frustration. Try waking up with this thought it your head every day for 4 years. You'd be desperate to get rid of it too. You'd be doing anything you could think of.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
I saw an interview with a police officer about whether or not he ever planted evidence at a crime scene. He wouldn't answer straight out, but he said something along these lines. "If there was a known child rapist and murderer, and all you had to do to catch him was smash his taillight or plant some evidence in his car, would you do it?"
I don't agree in the slightest with the officer, and no, I wouldn't do it. But you can kind of see where the guy is coming from, ya know? If all you had to do to help your friend fix his mental illness was tell him a little white lie, would you do it? Same kind of thought. I already know MJ won't lie to me. He's probably slightly upset that I suggested it. (Sorry MJ!!!) It's just semantics really. I'm just desperate to get this out of my head.
(Doing Therapy)
I'm not using an AK, I'm using a MAK. One aimed shot a second for the amateur would be probably right.
O.K., I find that ludicrous, but maybe it's just because we're not communicating.
There are sixty paratroopers coming at you, suffiently from the same direction that you can see them all without turning your body. All are within range, but they are at different altitudes, distances, and directions, without any pattern.
You are claiming that any fifteen year old who has no more experience than that he has been taught how to use this gun and has fired it a few times, whose attributes are entirely ordinary, can aim and fire it once at each of those sixty paratroopers in one minute.
You are also claiming that given your 2@ RSV, with a 2@ SAL you could aim and fire at every one of two hundred forty such paratroopers in one minute; that if you got an expert SAL you could aim and fire at three hundred sixty, six per second, and that an expert with with an incredible 3@ RSV could aim and fire this weapon at nine such targets per second, five hundred forty per minute.
Obviously we are not communicating.
*****
Concerning your question about Pearl Harbor, you are failing to understand what I already said. I wrongly assumed that despite your non-involvement talk the temptation to interfere in Pearl Harbor would be so great you would do whatever you could to become involved. Adam apparently correctly assumed that your non-involvement policy at least in this case would be so strong that you would have to be strong-armed into staying on site so that you would be coerced into becoming involved. I was wrong; he was right.
Had I been right, it would have been sufficient to drop you in the town outside the base, and you would have done what you could to warn them. Having the MP pick you up and using that as a plot introduction would have worked fine, and you would have tried to find a way to persuade them that you weren't crazy. I was wrong. Adam was right. His way, we learned that you could be coerced into becoming involved in you perceived such involvement as being in your own self-interest. That was what we wanted to know. I thought that the Pearl Harbor situation itself was coercive enough to cause you to interfere. My mistake.
O.K., it looks like we're going to have to pull rank. And by we, I mean I.
"Involved" means doing something intentionally to impact the situation one way or another.
"Observing" means being present in the middle of the situation and having only incidental, indirect, or unintended impact on it.
Those are the definitions. If you don't like them, don't say so, because your opinion on those definions is irrelevant to me.
If you think that being arrested by the MP, taken to the base commander, and locked in the brig to be killed in the attack would force you to do something intentionally to impact the the situation, then you may continue to claim that you were so forced by being arrested.
If, though, being arrested only meant that you would have the incidental, indirect, and unintended impact of an observer, then YOU WERE NOT FORCED TO BECOME INVOLVED.
Maxx--thanks for catching my repeat factor problem. I knew there was something wrong with it, and that really fixes a lot of the problem.
Using "auto mode" would fall into the category of throwing lead, that is, point the gun in the general direction of the target, pull the trigger, and roll a general effects roll to see whether the outcome is favorable or not.
Reload time is not impacted by strike value, so the minimum reload time is 18/3=6 seconds. But repeat factors are based on the assumption that there is infinite ammo in the weapon; weapon limitations are also observed. The difference is that a person with a 10 bullet clip might be able to aim and fire all ten bullets in the minute, but if he's better he can do it in half a minute and if he's incredible he can do it in about six seconds. Then he's out of bullets and has to reload, but it might not matter if ten bullets was enough.
--M. J. Young
You are claiming that any fifteen year old who has no more experience than that he has been taught how to use this gun and has fired it a few times, whose attributes are entirely ordinary, can aim and fire it once at each of those sixty paratroopers in one minute.
I said he could aim and fire. Whether or not he hit anything is another matter entirely. So make it once every 2 seconds then. What were you using before when I shot the demons in Dancing Princess? That seemed to work just fine.
*****
As to the other matter, you think me unreasonable and irrational. One hour inside my head, and you would be AMAZED that I was so civil about the whole thing. Besides, you're refusing outright to make a simple semantics change in the wording of a sentence to help a mentally ill person recover. Who is REALLY being unreasonable here?
(Doing Therapy)
Two
A completely rookie player about whom you know next to nothing, with exactly one game world as the entirety of his gaming experience. I'll pass him off to a referee about whom I also know next to nothing. I'll send this completely rookie player to the single most important historical event of the 20th century. He will certainly want to irrevocably change the future of the United States, who wouldn't? Besides, he's seen a horribly inaccurate movie loosely based on said historic event, and everyone knows that seeing a movie about something automatically qualifies you as an expert on it. That's why you have that time machine sitting in your garage, right MJ? Then you WONDER why it blows up in your face?
You said not too long ago that there were things that were worse for you, and you didn't email me on a weekly basis about them. Yeah, but I am in no way responsible for any worse situation that won't get out of your head. (Aside, maybe, from this) You on the other hand are the person most directly responsible for this not getting out of my head. (Or did someone else pick the world?) Then, when I beg you to make a simple semantics change to a sentence for no other purpose than to help me recover from the situation you created for me, you outright refuse to and call ME unreasonable.
OK, sure......
(Doing Therapy)
Using "auto mode" would fall into the category of throwing lead
Can you give an example and how this will effect damage, accuracy and use of bullets?
What would happen if throwing lead is done at point blank distance?
Reload time is not impacted by strike value, so the minimum reload time is 18/3=6 seconds.
That was a bit slow for a professional. I wonder if a separate fast reloading skill could make it even faster.
If someone left 1 bullet in the chamber, the process of reloading could go even faster depending on the firearm.
*****
John, try to imagine the person that you want to get your idea across said,
"You are right but there might exist some exceptions."
There are reasons why "but there might exist some exceptions" must be included in that sentence but it is really important to imagine it with that words. Do this every time to resolve an endless argument which could make your situation worsen.
We are just arguing semantics at this point. I don't know why I can't let it go.
As far as lying just to make someone feel better, you do it all the time. Your mom says "How do I look?" you don't say "You look horrible Mom. You have bags under your eyes and your hair is messed up." No, you tell her "You look beautiful mom." See what I mean? It's just one of those things. Did you read what I put down about how this affected my psychosis? It's finally getting under control.
No, I don't do this. Ever. I remain silent, or pretend not to hear, or look and grunt, or generally not tell the truth, but I'll never tell an untruth deliberately.
If you just said "John, you were forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack." That would end it right now. Seriously, that's all I want. I was forced to get involved, but not forced to warn them of the attack.
You were not forced to get involved, that's impossible. You were forced to get involved or suffer consequences that are unacceptable to you. As I recall, you were never forced to warn them of the attack, though. They didn't know about it, so they couldn't ask.
Not lying, simply pointing out that while there was a choice, the alternative was unacceptable to you. I'm trying to meet you halfway here.
Like I said, that was suggested in a moment of anger and frustration. You never do or say something in a moment of frustration which is completely stupid?
John wrote:
Besides, you're refusing outright to make a simple semantics change in the wording of a sentence....
I guess I should not be surprised that I was thinking about this as I approached the forum and you've posted about it.
I was a bit upset and irrational when I dealt with this thread yesterday, and I apologize for my weakly-veiled ire. However, I stand by the facts of the matter, and on this basis:
- I am the one who said that I wanted to see whether or not you would become "involved" if I put you in Pearl Harbor. Since I am the one who said that, it is my definition of "involved" that matters. It would have been impossible for me to be wondering whether you would become "involved" by some definition of "involved" that you had that was unknown to me.
Indeed, it was your talk in the previous world that caused me to believe you were preaching a non-involvement prime directive philosophy of the verse, and so there is some degree to which you introduced the question of whether you would or would not become "involved". (Whether you used the word or not might be irrelevant.) My argument, though, still goes to whether you would become involved as I understand that word. Therefore when we talk about whether or not you would become involved in Pearl Harbor, my definition is what matters, and your argument concerning the definition of "involved" is moot, because it is not about what the word means in the grand scheme of the universal use of language, but about what I meant by it when I used it in that context.
You were free to remain an uninvolved observer in custody; you were free to remain an uninvolved observer in a hospital bed somewhere on the base. You chose otherwise. You felt you were coerced. The basis of your coercion is, as Brock observed, that you considered all the alternatives unacceptable. That means that the Prime Directive of Non-Interference is not your top priority, and when it conflicts with your own self-interest in other ways, you will ignore it.
That really ought to settle the matter.
*****
Max wrote, quoting me:
Using "auto mode" would fall into the category of throwing leadCan you give an example and how this will effect damage, accuracy and use of bullets?
What would happen if throwing lead is done at point blank distance?
Anything that is determined by a general effects roll is determined on a relatively subjective basis. This comes into combat in a number of situations. For example, if you shoot at a vehicle or a building, a general effects roll is used to determine whether the damage done is cosmetic, general, or structural; structural damage could stop a vehicle or collapse a building, general damage is wearing it down slowly, and cosmetic damage is merely marring the outside. In such situations the referee takes into account the type of weapon and the density and design of the target and other factors.
With "throwing lead", all the ordinary factors involved in targeting are eliminated from the skill check--you don't have range modifiers, size modifiers, movement modifiers, cover modifiers, strike values, or target values. All you have in the skill check ordinarily is your BRA+SAL+2xBias Level, that is, the factors involved in whether you actually can successfully operate the weapon, did you pull the trigger and get it to fire. If you succeeded, the GE roll hits the table, and the referee takes into account all the factors he knows: how hard is it to hit these targets, how hard is it to kill them, how far are they, how damaging are your bullets, all that kind of stuff. You do not get damage bonuses for skill or strike value, because you are not aiming (those damage bonuses are based on the assumption that your superior aim gives you more damage). What you get is the referee saying, "the shot was '12 good enough', so under these circumstances that means" whatever he thinks it means--from you killed some to you injured some to the noise of your weapon frightened them away uninjured. It could be "the shot was 30, it went wild and hit his associate, killing him" or "the shot was 3, it hit the gas tank of the vehicle behind them causing it to explode", but a 3 does not have to be completely wonderful nor a 30 completely disastrous--they only have to express what the referee believes is the one in a thousand best or worst possible result under the circumstances. Maybe you emptied the entire clip into the gut of the dragon, slowing it enough that you can get out the door before it recovers; maybe you fired all your bullets into the air over the heads of the unimpressed enemies, and now your gun is empty and they're still coming.
The idea is that throwing lead is a desperate option better used by unskilled fighters; a highly skilled user can nearly always do more damage to more targets by targeting them.
Again, Max quoting me:
Reload time is not impacted by strike value, so the minimum reload time is 18/3=6 seconds.That was a bit slow for a professional. I wonder if a separate fast reloading skill could make it even faster.
If someone left 1 bullet in the chamber, the process of reloading could go even faster depending on the firearm.
The professional is actually 9 seconds; but this is a slower clip change than, say, a pistol.
Generally, clip changes are 0:06, 0:12, 0:18, and 0:24, because it is more convenient in play for them to be divisible by both two and three. The professional's speed is then 0:03, 0:06, 0:09, or 0:12, and the expert's 0:02, 0:04, 0:06, and 0:08. I usually make pistol clip changes 0:12 and rifle clip changes 0:18, because I want to have a faster and a slower category for special case weapons, I think rifles do take longer to change clips than pistols generally, and I want that to matter in terms of the number of shots in combat. Of course, usually rifle clips have a larger capacity than pistol clips, and often when they don't we're looking at an exception to the usual rule--that is, a pistol that takes a thirty-bullet clip usually takes longer to change clips than one with a ten- to fifteen-bullet clip, and so winds up in the rifle category for clip change speed. But it's one more advantage of the pistol over the rifle. Rifles have a lot of advantages--almost always range, frequently damage--but it should not be a matter that they are always the better choice, and the better reload speed and sometimes faster repeat factor of a clip-fed pistol is one reason to choose it instead.
It was a feature explored in Dark Honor Empire beta, in which the modern samurai use rifles and the modern ninja use pistols of the same caliber. The rifles do more damage and have longer ranges, but the pistols are faster, and thus the ninja fight in close quarters while the samurai prefer to fight at distance.
--M. J. Young
Well, under my definition, I was FORCED to become involved.
MJ WROTE:
Concerning your question about Pearl Harbor, you are failing to understand what I already said. I wrongly assumed that despite your non-involvement talk the temptation to interfere in Pearl Harbor would be so great you would do whatever you could to become involved.
What temptation? Taking out the historical significance that changing the attack could potentially have disastrous consequences for the US, why would I be tempted to go to a place where bombs are going to be falling all around me in less than 2 days? What made you think for a moment that I would want to go there?
What I've learned from this is that you will make a lot of baseless, unfounded assumptions about people. How many did you make about me? All of them completely incorrect.
And I'm sure all of that sounds a bit more rude than is intended. I'm still just trying to make sense of it.
What temptation?
Being injured and knowing Pearl Harbor will be attacked could be considered as a temptation. A very good one, if I think about it.
All of them completely incorrect.
I am not so sure that all of them were incorrect.
try to imagine the person that you want to get your idea across said,
"You are right but there might exist some exceptions."
John, have you tried the above?
*****
All you have in the skill check ordinarily is your BRA+SAL+2xBias Level, that is, the factors involved in whether you actually can successfully operate the weapon, did you pull the trigger and get it to fire. If you succeeded, the GE roll hits the table
Does the skill check have any value to modify the GE roll or would it be the same regardless of any value of the skill check?
For example, if the skill check is very successful, would the GE roll be added bonus or something?
Speaking of bonus GE roll, would it look something like this:
33-(2d10+10) or 23-2d10
The professional is actually 9 seconds; but this is a slower clip change than, say, a pistol.
Well, I guess it could not be helped considering it would be hard to calculate if the game uses fractions.
For your reference, a website said that:
the average infantryman should be able to reload in under a second and a half
Could a separate fast loading skill cut the loading time in half or something?
Fast reload time = (1-RS/200)*(usual reload time)
At professional level = (1-3*RS/400)*(usual reload time)
At expert level = (1-7*RS/800)*(usual reload time)
Would the above be too troublesome to calculate and the referee would prefer to choose a lower clip changes time from the list of "2,3,4,6,8,9,12,18,24" or some other system?
I want to have a faster and a slower category for special case weapons
A special case weapons that can be reloaded in 0:02 at expert level would probably have 1 to 5 bullets right?
modern samurai use rifles and the modern ninja use pistols of the same caliber
That somehow makes me remember something about "Gunblades". A battle of Rifle-swords and Pistol-dagger. Seems like an interesting world.
John wrote:
What temptation?
You don't seem to be paying attention.
The only way any of us truly understand each other is by finding within ourselves similar feelings and ideas and projecting them on others. I perceived within myself that knowing only a little about Pearl Harbor I would be sorely tempted to take action to prevent the deaths of the crew of the Arizona, at least, trying to put the base on alert. Of course, I'm not committed to non-involvement; but I thought this would be a situation in which non-involvement would be sorely tested.
I have already admitted that I was mistaken about this in connection with you. I have also stated that based on my incorrect assessment of the situation I concluded that being in Pearl Harbor would have challenged your non-involvement position. My assessment being wrong, my conclusion was also wrong. Adam may or may not have had a different assessment--I do not know what his plan had been before you managed to completely derail the scenario by getting yourself nearly killed in a motor vehicle accident everyone could see coming except, somehow, you. It may be that he was working from the same assessment and planned to let you talk your way out of the arrest and flee the scene were that your choice. It may be that he perceived that in this case, at least, you would be reluctant to become "involved" and that additional pressure was necessary to inspire you to abandon the Prime Directive in favor of involvement. We can't know what he would have done, because your actions closed all the options and forced you to stay on the base in the hospital.
No one forced you to stay there except you.
*****
Maxx:
Does the skill check have any value to modify the GE roll or would it be the same regardless of any value of the skill check?
That's an excellent question, really, and I would say that it's quite reasonable for relative success to be a factor in the decision. However, you don't bonus or penalize GE rolls: you interpret them in the light of the circumstances. Thus if I have a strong skill check and a favorable GE roll I read it more positively than I would with a weak skill check and the same GE roll; if I have an unfavorable GE roll, though, a strong skill check might make the outcome worse--I managed to put all of the bullets into those huge vats of unstable fuel.
I would probably allow a fast loading skill if it were defined in a way that made sense to me. Once I'm below a base of six seconds, though, I'd probably just treat it as comparable to a fast draw/iajutsu skill, in which the reload time becomes negligible within the context of the circumstances, if the skill check is successful.
--M. J. Young
I perceived within myself that knowing only a little about Pearl Harbor I would be sorely tempted to take action to prevent the deaths of the crew of the Arizona, at least, trying to put the base on alert. Of course, I'm not committed to non-involvement; but I thought this would be a situation in which non-involvement would be sorely tested.
That's what I'm talking about. Baseless, unfounded assumptions. I probably would have sent me to Pearl Harbor too. It does sound like it has the potential to be a fun world and it matches your parameters of "If you already knew, would you get involved?" However, I would make no assumptions about what the player would do or what their knowledge was. In this case, I would assume that the movie Final Countdown had been seen, and that the player knew that much information. If they knew more than that, all the better, but I wouldn't assume that the player knew any more than what was presented in the movie. You keep talking about "The Arizona." I still don't know what that was. I seem to recall a passing reference to it made in the movie, but that's about it. Really, all I do know about Pearl Harbor is what was presented in Final Countdown, and you had no reason whatsoever to assume that I knew more than that. Also, I don't think I would make any assumptions about what the player would do. You've twice now incorrectly assumed that I would want to get involved in scenarios. Pearl Harbor and Dancing Princess. If I were truly committed to non-involvement, John Connor doesn't HAVE to lead the resistance. Fortunately, this time, you guessed correctly.
I do not know what his plan had been before you managed to completely derail the scenario by getting yourself nearly killed in a motor vehicle accident everyone could see coming except, somehow, you.
Everyone else could see it coming because they have years of gaming experience. I didn't, and really, I still don't. Also, let's get something straight. I didn't crash the jeep, Adam did. He could have just as easily given me "safe" botches. My actions led up to a crash, but Adam was the one who decided to crash it.
Treats players like that, then wonders why I don't do what he says as far as OOC posts? He's already put my character in traction, what more could he have done? I almost would have preferred it if he had replied on time like he was supposed to, and made my character's life rough for the OOC posts. Not replying meant that he was trying to control ME. Not my character, ME. He's already in control of the United States military, and he feels the need to control ME, not my character. At least I admit I've got mental problems, does Adam?
Two
I thought this would be a situation in which non-involvement would be sorely tested.
Quite to the contrary. Not warning them would have been the easiest decision I ever made. TO WARN THEM was the tough decision. What's a couple hundred/thousand Americans killed, to spare millions lost if Germany wins the war? So why wasn't I willing to add my own life to that pile? If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't have warned them. If I would have stayed dead, I don't think I would have warned them. They're going to die and go to Heaven. I am going to have 40 broken bones and no hospital. (or so I was thinking) Call that a "Temporary Problem" if you so choose, I call it being afraid and an instinct for self-preservation. I should have known right off the bat that you wouldn't have written the rules like that, and I kind of feel stupid now for thinking that you did. However, I was really trying to put myself in my character's shoes. It wasn't something I took lightly.
Three
MJ, after reading some of these over again, they undoubtedly sound a lot more rude than are intended. I seem to have an abrasive manner with a keyboard. No offense was intended or should be inferred.
(Doing Therapy)
That is insulting precisely because it is untrue.Baseless, unfounded assumptions.
My assumptions were based on founded on what I thought I would do in that situation, and what I thought the majority of players I have known would have done. They were neither baseless nor unfounded; they were simply incorrect.
Also, let's get something straight. I didn't crash the jeep, Adam did. He could have just as easily given me "safe" botches.
He would have been cheating. Botches are always bad, even when there is a good aspect to them, and even when the character is able to turn them to good.
You crashed the jeep. Adam was not there. His part in the process was solely in discovering what impact your foolishness had.
To analogize it, let's suppose that you were riding in the front seat of a car while I was driving, and you suddenly pulled out a gun and shot me, and I blacked out and drove off the road into a tree. Are you going to blame Smith & Wesson for causing the accident? You assaulted the driver while he was driving. You did not think at the time that assaulting the driver while he was driving might cause an accident, but if you had been sitting in the front seat next to him poking him in random spots with a finger, the arguments would be exactly the same--the die roll determined that the driver lost control of the vehicle and crashed it, because of your actions.
As long as you don't take responsibility for having caused the accident, you're unlikely to learn from it.
--M. J. Young
I wrote:
Baseless, unfounded assumptions.
MJ Replied:
That is insulting precisely because it is untrue.
My assumptions were based on founded on what I thought I would do in that situation, and what I thought the majority of players I have known would have done. They were neither baseless nor unfounded; they were simply incorrect.
No, what I said was absolutely true. Your assumptions are what's insulting. How dare you automatically assume that I would behave like every other player you know? Your assumptions were baseless and unfounded because everyone is different. So a hundred other players would warn them of the attack. That says nothing whatsoever about what I would do. We're not talking about a scientific theory which has repeatable, predictable results. We're talking about human beings. Human beings aren't all the same. Regardless of how many players would warn them of the attack, even if every other person on the entire planet would warn them of the attack, you still have no basis whatsoever to assume what I would do. Now if I had already been through a half-dozen worlds and jumped into each and every one of them, and then I refused to get involved in Pearl Harbor, THEN you would be making a based, founded, incorrect assumption. The only indication you had of my behavior was B Movie Monster world, in which I demonstrated non-involvement. Therefore, the basis and foundation you should have been working from would be that I would NOT get involved in Pearl Harbor. What anyone else would do is completely irrelevant and is no basis on which to try to predict MY behavior. Therefore, baseless, unfounded assumptions. Besides, what was your basis and foundation to think that I was an expert on Pearl Harbor? How many millions of people have watched that movie and yet know no more about Pearl Harbor than I do?
I wrote:
Also, let's get something straight. I didn't crash the jeep, Adam did. He could have just as easily given me "safe" botches.
MJ Replied
He would have been cheating. Botches are always bad, even when there is a good aspect to them, and even when the character is able to turn them to good.
A botch can be "bad" and "safe" at the same time. I recall a botch list you put down, one was "Melt steering wheel" Bad botch, but the jeep could still be safely stopped and the passengers on foot. (Melted doesn't necessarily mean burning, it could have turned to jelly) Another you put down was "Fuse MP's hands to steering wheel" Bad botch, but again, the jeep could be safely stopped. I seem to recall you putting down "Shut down jeep engine" The jeep would be coasting and completely controllable. The MP would probably just stop and restart the engine, and I, realizing I just got lucky, would stop pulsing him. Bad and safe at the same time. There's a million-and-one "bad" botches which wouldn't have crashed the jeep and put the player in traction.
As you have stated on the board, you are dependent on the good graces of others. Certainly you know what it's like to expect to receive grace from someone, see no reason why it shouldn't be extended, and yet not receive the grace. Fair or not on their part, right or wrong, you still can't help but feel a certain way about not receiving the expected grace. It's just human nature. I would have expected that a seasoned referee would recognize that he was playing with a rookie player who didn't understand the game. I would have expected that the seasoned referee would show this rookie player at least a small level of good grace. This was my baseless, unfounded assumption. First he puts me in traction, then whilst in traction, I am completely at the mercy of the Pearl Harbor leadership played by TA DA!! Adam!!! He STILL shows me no grace or mercy. Do you need a slide ruler to see the SADISM in that?
As long as you don't take responsibility for having caused the accident, you're unlikely to learn from it.
Oh buddy, I learned from it. I am taking responsibility for it. I accepted that it was my fault a long time ago. What I'm saying is that grace could have been extended. Don't get me wrong, what I've learned, it was possibly the best thing which could have happened. Doesn't change the fact that I had a psychotic episode about it. Go back a few dozen posts and reread what I put down about how it affected me if you need a reminder.
Two
Mistake.
JOHN!!! STOP POSTING!!!!!! YOU ALREADY MADE YOUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!