Transferring partially-full E-clips between weapons

[Tor]

A lot of logistic problems occur here, like how many shots you could get off when different weapons get a different amount of shots from the same type of clip.

Sometimes it works out nicely with fractions. Like say from RMBp225, if you were using a short clip in an L-20 pulse rifle and fired 20 shots, that's half, so if you switched the clip into an NG-L5, you should have half the payload or 5 shots. Also: only just now noticing how wicked-efficient the L-20 is, gawd.

But other times it's not so clear. Although you can sometimes math it out in your head, the more times it switches between different weapons with different payloads, the more complicated it gets.

I thought about maybe just doing some kind of 'energy unit' by multiplying all the highest non-factor payloads that exist, but in many cases it's probably easiest to just calculate the percentage-full an e-clip is.

The only trouble there would be with numbers that are multiples of 3 or 7 or other strangeness I guess. This can more often be a problem with long-eclips, like the % left when you use a long clip in a C-10 or C-12 versus using it in a NG-L5 or L-20.

Figuring out how big a number we would need to assign a short or long clip in 'energy units' and then assigning each blast a cost in those units would be easier than dealing with stuff like 1/30 of 100% or 1/7 of 100% due to repeating decimals, but in maybe I'm overestimating the difficulty?

[Library Ogre]

Cross multiply.

Say you have a weapon that gets 23 shot per eclip, and another that gets 13. You fire five shots on the first weapon, take it out, and slap it in the second weapon.

5/23=x/13

5(13)=23x

65=23x

65/23=x

~2.83=x

Round that up to 3, and you say the second weapon has 10 shots left. Pretty simple math, and it keeps things more or less accurate.

[Tor]

Pretty sure we should always round down in the case of how many shots something has left, can't fire a full shot with only a portion.

In the case of 23 and 13 I would multiply it out to be 299 energy units. The 23-shot gun would use 13 EUs per shot, the 13-shot gun would use 23 EUs per shot.

The problem is when you share across more than 2, that's more and more things to multiply, course you can decimal it out and the fraction of the newest gun to see if it can fire a shot I guess. Each time more fractions are consolidated, simplifying can get harder.

[SpiritInterface]

I'd just say no. I would say that when you fired a e-weapon the e-clip would be synced if now that weapon then that type of weapon.

[Tor]

Not sure what you mean about that, we're talking about keeping track of how much energy is left in a clip. There is no syncing. It draws on a given amount of energy to make a shot equal to 1 divided by the number of shots you get from the clip multiplied by how many shots you made.

[ShadowLogan]

Cross multiply.

Say you have a weapon that gets 23 shot per eclip, and another that gets 13. You fire five shots on the first weapon, take it out, and slap it in the second weapon.

5/23=x/13

5(13)=23x

65=23x

65/23=x

~2.83=x

Round that up to 3, and you say the second weapon has 10 shots left. Pretty simple math, and it keeps things more or less accurate.

Pretty much what I would do, though I would set it up to give the shots remaining instead of shots used in the second weapon directly instead.

(23-5)/23 = Y/13 OR (13*(23-5))/23 = ~10.17.

When rounding I think I would look at base damage between weapons. If Weapon B does less damage per shot, round up, if it does more damage per shot, round down since presumably there is a difference in the amount of energy each uses per shot.

[masslegion]

Or just change everything to a percentage and then multiply the percentage to the new weapons payload and round down.

[flatline]

If you don't mind keeping up with decimals, just figure out how much of a percentage each shot takes out of the an e-clip.

If you don't like decimals, just decide how many energy units are in an e-clip and figure out how many units each weapon consumes per shot.

For either of these to work, you'll need to fix the math for long e-clips since some weapons get 1.5x more shots out of a long e-clip but others get 3x or something in between. I recommend picking a ratio (the canon ratio is 1.5x) and then correcting the payloads for whatever weapons you're using.

--flatline

[flatline]

Also: only just now noticing how wicked-efficient the L-20 is, gawd.

It is one of the most economical weapons in the game from a cost per shot perspective.

Here's a thread that does some analysis in terms of expected damage per clip, but it's easy to use these numbers as a basis to calculate $/shot or $/MD inflicted.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=138160

This kind of thinking is why the L-20 and the Kitanni K-4 were so popular in the groups I played with.

--flatline

[Tor]

Seems the C-12 is a match though, both get 80d6 per short clip, and the C-12 is better with long clips, 120d6 vs 100d6. The JA-12 seems to tie the C-12 with the long clip. Odd how sometimes long clips only are 25% better in payload than shorts and other times they're 200% better. Guess some weapons abuse them more than others.

Course the laser torch can get 200d6 out of a clip but the range reduction is almost like comparing it to vibro-blades.

[flatline]

Seems the C-12 is a match though, both get 80d6 per short clip, and the C-12 is better with long clips, 120d6 vs 100d6. The JA-12 seems to tie the C-12 with the long clip. Odd how sometimes long clips only are 25% better in payload than shorts and other times they're 200% better. Guess some weapons abuse them more than others.

Course the laser torch can get 200d6 out of a clip but the range reduction is almost like comparing it to vibro-blades.

It's my understanding that the C-12 has to shoot a burst of 5(?) shots to get the 4d6MD. Because of the confusion around the errata for the C-12, I left it out of the analysis I linked to in my earlier post.

The JA-12 suffers from stupid math. If the long e-clip gets 1.5x the energy as a short clip, the JA-12 should only get 15 shots from a long clip instead of 30. I've fixed this in my own game and do not include it in the analysis I linked to in my previous post. I'm pretty sure I mentioned that purposeful omission in that thread.

--flatline

[Tor]

5 shots fired to get double damage sounds pretty rough, particularly since in RMB pre-CB it could do a x5 for 10 shots or a x10 for 20 shots. Still haven't taken that 3-shot burst weirdness in RUE eh?

I always figured because the C-12 was the new model improvedo n the C-10 so it got power in exchange for no cool laser targetting to snipe borg eyes with. *dat podcast*

[flatline]

5 shots fired to get double damage sounds pretty rough, particularly since in RMB pre-CB it could do a x5 for 10 shots or a x10 for 20 shots. Still haven't taken that 3-shot burst weirdness in RUE eh?

Yup. When it came up in our game, the GM always ruled 2-shot burst for 4d6 so efficiency wasn't lost (although it was still pretty weak weapon compared to the L-20).

I always figured because the C-12 was the new model improvedo n the C-10 so it got power in exchange for no cool laser targetting to snipe borg eyes with. *dat podcast*

We figured it was a transitional design as the CS tried to develop their own pulse capabilities rather than use existing designs (like the L-20). By CWC the main battle rifle was a damaging as the L-20, but still not as efficient. But it was good enough since e-clips are plentiful for CS forces. CS engineers might have decided that last bit of efficiency wasn't worth the effort of research, development, or retooling of their production lines. Or maybe the improved range was a trade-off against efficiency.

--flatline

[SpiritInterface]

Not sure what you mean about that, we're talking about keeping track of how much energy is left in a clip. There is no syncing. It draws on a given amount of energy to make a shot equal to 1 divided by the number of shots you get from the clip multiplied by how many shots you made.

Oh I understand what you are talking about, but that is based on the assumption that you can swap partially used e-clips between weapons. I was saying that I don't think you can.

[Nightmask]

Not sure what you mean about that, we're talking about keeping track of how much energy is left in a clip. There is no syncing. It draws on a given amount of energy to make a shot equal to 1 divided by the number of shots you get from the clip multiplied by how many shots you made.

Oh I understand what you are talking about, but that is based on the assumption that you can swap partially used e-clips between weapons. I was saying that I don't think you can.

Why do you think that? They're interchangeable batteries, have you ever had problems swapping a partially drained battery (say from one remote to another) from one suitable device to another and had it not work because the new device wasn't the device that first started draining it?

[kaid]

Cross multiply.

Say you have a weapon that gets 23 shot per eclip, and another that gets 13. You fire five shots on the first weapon, take it out, and slap it in the second weapon.

5/23=x/13

5(13)=23x

65=23x

65/23=x

~2.83=x

Round that up to 3, and you say the second weapon has 10 shots left. Pretty simple math, and it keeps things more or less accurate.

This sounds right to me basically an Eclip is a battery. Somethings are more efficient draws on the battery than others.

[Killer Cyborg]

5 shots fired to get double damage sounds pretty rough, particularly since in RMB pre-CB it could do a x5 for 10 shots or a x10 for 20 shots. Still haven't taken that 3-shot burst weirdness in RUE eh?

It couldn't. The "Aimed, Burst, Wild" ROF was a typo that accidentally made the gun aweseom.
It was always supposed to be that the 2d6 MD was for single shot, and the 4d6 MD was for the preset 5-shot burst that was mentioned in the weapon description.
Which made the weapon slightly more efficient than a normal Short Burst: 6 shots for x2 damage, but still overall unimpressive.

I always figured because the C-12 was the new model improvedo n the C-10 so it got power in exchange for no cool laser targetting to snipe borg eyes with. *dat podcast*

We figured it was a transitional design as the CS tried to develop their own pulse capabilities rather than use existing designs (like the L-20). By CWC the main battle rifle was a damaging as the L-20, but still not as efficient. But it was good enough since e-clips are plentiful for CS forces. CS engineers might have decided that last bit of efficiency wasn't worth the effort of research, development, or retooling of their production lines. Or maybe the improved range was a trade-off against efficiency.

--flatline

The C-12 was the new, improved model over the C-10, where it had twice as much ammo capacity, and a slightly more efficient short burst.
The C-10 mentions "The C-10 light laser rifle is an earlier version of the C-12...", pointing out that they're two different versions of the same rifle.
The laser targeting sight for the C-10 was "too touchy, and has been scrapped from all later weapons."
Apparently the CS would rather have a reliable +1 laser targeting system than a +3 system that has a 23% chance of failure after every strenuous combat, and a 40% chance of failure after a hard fall.

All of which is rather absurd in the face of the L-20, a generic pulse rifle that out-performs everything that the CS had until CWC, and (as you say) is still more efficient than the best the CS has to offer.
It kind of goes against the whole "The Coalition has the most powerful army in the known world. Their level of technology is unsurpassed in the Americas." bit that the RMB tells us.

As you probably know, my personal patch was to house-rule that the C-12's 5-shot setting is a pulse, which inflicts 1d6x10 MD.
That puts the weapon back toward the top damage-wise, but still makes it plausible that the CS would replace it with the CP-40, simply because the C-12 chews through ammo too fast (4 pulses per short clip, 5 pulses per long clip or the e-cannister, meaning that you only get maybe 9-10 pulses before reloading, versus up to 20 pulses with the CP-40).
It would also explain why CS Special Forces and other soldiers still prefer the C-12 to some degree.


Edit:
Oh, and of course, the C-12's 5-shot burst setting was only efficient compared to a Long E-Clip. If you stick a short e-clip in it, then 20% of the clip is only 4 shots, meaning that you could do 4d6 MD with a 4-shot burst.
If you compare e-clip performance with the C-10, you could either use a short clip for 20 shots and get 5 4d6 MD bursts before running out of ammo, or you could use a long clip and get 5 4d6 MD bursts before running out of ammo.
So the 5-shot burst of the C-12 was actually less efficient than standard firing would be, when using short e-clips.
Another problem with the original burst/spray rules, and the e-clip rules.

[flatline]

All of which is rather absurd in the face of the L-20, a generic pulse rifle that out-performs everything that the CS had until CWC, and (as you say) is still more efficient than the best the CS has to offer.
It kind of goes against the whole "The Coalition has the most powerful army in the known world. Their level of technology is unsurpassed in the Americas." bit that the RMB tells us.

They don't have to be the best at everything in order for that statement to categorically make sense.

--flatline

[Killer Cyborg]

All of which is rather absurd in the face of the L-20, a generic pulse rifle that out-performs everything that the CS had until CWC, and (as you say) is still more efficient than the best the CS has to offer.
It kind of goes against the whole "The Coalition has the most powerful army in the known world. Their level of technology is unsurpassed in the Americas." bit that the RMB tells us.

They don't have to be the best at everything in order for that statement to categorically make sense.

--flatline

Agreed... but the implication there is that they have at least above-average weapons technology.
The L-20 is presented as a kind of generic laser pulse rifle manufactured not only by the Black Market, but by "several kindgoms across the land."
Its main features in the description are "dependable" and "lightweight," not "Drastically better than the Coalition's main assault rifles."
And the JA-11 is supposed to be spiffy, but the laser inflicting 4d6 MD made more sense to me when I thought that the C-12's laser could also inflict 4d6 MD on a single shot.

[Tor]

*likes that idea of the d6x10 pulse for the C-12, though if enacted, might need to beef the NGR and CWC stuff that's supposed to be better

It couldn't. The "Aimed, Burst, Wild" ROF was a typo that accidentally made the gun aweseom.

I don't think cut and paste decisions should be called typos. 'Oversight' is a broader category I could potentially see it included under.

Considering RMB designed these from scratch, I am not convinced it was a mistake, I think RUE simply made the decision to take bursting rules away from MD weapons because it makes things more destructive.

It was always supposed to be that the 2d6 MD was for single shot, and the 4d6 MD was for the preset 5-shot burst that was mentioned in the weapon description.

Source? This doesn't follow the pattern seen in RMB weapons. We are told two things about the C-12:
*The rifle has three settings, one SDC and two MDC settings.
*The rifle can also fire a single shot or a burst of five.

"also" means it is distinct. It is not merely explaining one of the MD settings, it is saying that any of the three settings can fire a 5-shot burst, making at least 6 firing modes.

Contrast this to the pulse weapons where we are clearly told when higher damage is due to multiple shots.

The 2d6/4d6 for the C-12 resembles what we see in the NG-57, wondering if you also argue that the 2d4>3d6 is also about bursts?

A big argument against this line of thought is the JA-11, we're clearly told the laser can only fire single shots and it has 2 settings.

Which made the weapon slightly more efficient than a normal Short Burst: 6 shots for x2 damage, but still overall unimpressive.

Where is 6 the normal for short bursts? 20% or 1/5 of 20 shots is 4 shots so that would actually be LESS efficient. Oh wait *reads long-clip disclaimer* Okay I see what you mean in that respect.

Agreed... but the implication there is that they have at least above-average weapons technology.
The L-20 is presented as a kind of generic laser pulse rifle manufactured not only by the Black Market, but by "several kindgoms across the land."
Its main features in the description are "dependable" and "lightweight," not "Drastically better than the Coalition's main assault rifles."
And the JA-11 is supposed to be spiffy, but the laser inflicting 4d6 MD made more sense to me when I thought that the C-12's laser could also inflict 4d6 MD on a single shot.

It's more balanced when we realize that 4d6 is for a single shot, and that we simply never got rules for the alluded-to 5-shot burst since that is 1/4 of a short and 1/6 of a long, neither of which falls into the 1/5 and 1/2 parameters for the short/long burst.

[Killer Cyborg]

The nature of the C-12 is something that was heavily debated years ago, including all of the point that you just brought up.
I played the gun incorrectly for 10 years or so before enough evidence was presented to convince me that the 4d6 setting was the burst setting.
But it did convince me.
And when I asked KS about it at GenCon 2005, he confirmed.
Search through the old threads, and you can find all or most of the old conversations.

[Tor]

GenCon2005 might qualify as a retcon but I don't know of any evidence preceding that, certainly no clarification.

Compare to RUE where they changed it to be a burst of 3 shots that does 6d6.

[eliakon]

GenCon2005 might qualify as a retcon but I don't know of any evidence preceding that, certainly no clarification.

Compare to RUE where they changed it to be a burst of 3 shots that does 6d6.

A clarification of a rule is not a retcon
A retcon is when you retroactively change something
A clarification is when you make more clear something that has always been that way.

[Tor]

It was not always that way, it was a change.

Authors or fans sometimes misrepresent retcons as clarifications though.

As-written the C-12's 4d6 setting was single shot. If this was a mistake, it would've been corrected when Kev reprinted the C-12 on page 91 of CWC. He didn't blindly cut and paste that, he altered it, changing the rate of fire to 'equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks'.

If we look at the payload there is only 20 blasts and 'six SDC shots count as one mega-damage'.

If 4d6 was 2 shots it would note that under payload or SOMEWHERE.

I haven't seen this 4d6 = 2d6x2 anywhere in print, and authors saying something contrary to text at fan conventions is a change, not a clarification, if it is not resolvable by the original text.

The 'single shot or a burst' text being ALSO means it does not represent the 4d6m/2d6m/6d6s damage options.

Comparing to RUE, why would '4d6 on a burst of 5' become '6d6 on a burst of 3' ?

[Killer Cyborg]

GenCon2005 might qualify as a retcon but I don't know of any evidence preceding that, certainly no clarification.

Then you should probably look at the old threads that I mentioned, as well as looking at the history of the weapon from the RMB to CWC to RGMG, then to RUE, then to later editions of RUE.
Also, look at the CV-212 and CV-213, and the CP-40.

To help you out, here's a link to an old thread about it:
viewtopic.php?p=444391#p444391

Unfortunately, all the threads before 2004 seem to have been archived, so I can't access them.

Compare to RUE where they changed it to be a burst of 3 shots that does 6d6.

IIRC, that's not what happened in RUE.
It's just what it looked like.
What actually happened was that they somehow screwed up, swapping the damage from the C-12 and the CV-212
I think they fixed it in later editions, and currently the C-12 currently has a 3-shot burst that does 4d6 MD.

Either way, they've clarified that the second setting is a burst setting, not a single-shot setting.
Which it was always meant to be, it's just that the original description wasn't clear.

[Killer Cyborg]

It was not always that way, it was a change.

No.
It was always that way.
Conflicting with your interpretation of a rule is not a change.

As-written the C-12's 4d6 setting was single shot.

The 4d6 setting is NEVER stated to be a single shot.
Ever.
That's something that you (and I, and many others) assumed, just like we assumed that the 5-shot burst that was mentioned for some reason lacked any damage listing... but we were wrong on both counts. The 4d6 MD setting IS the 5-shot burst setting.

If this was a mistake, it would've been corrected when Kev reprinted the C-12 on page 91 of CWC.

Assuming that Palladium would correct an error should be listed as one of the classic logical fallacies.

He didn't blindly cut and paste that, he altered it, changing the rate of fire to 'equal to the number of combined hand to hand attacks'.

Right.
Because it wasn't supposed to be a "Aimed, Burst, Wild" weapon in the first place. That was a typo.
The weapon had three settings:
1. Single-Shot for 6d6 SDC.
2. Single-Shot for 2d6 MD.
3. 5-Shot burst for 4d6 MD.

The mistake was the ROF, and that WAS fixed in CWC.
Neglecting to mention that the 3rd setting was the burst setting has also since been fixed, in RUE.

So on one hand, you're claiming that "if x was a mistake, then Palladium would necessarily fix it!"
And on the other hand, you're claiming that the fixes that they DID actually make are "changes."

[Tor]

the history of the weapon from the RMB to CWC

Already addressed: far as I can tell Kev just changed aimed/burst/wild to 'per attack'. Forgot to do same for the C-10 tho.

to RGMG, then to RUE, then to later editions of RUE

I compared to 1st ed of RUE, did not know of later change.

I'm looking at RGMG page 121 right now but I don't see what has changed about the C-12 here. What is being referred to? Or is this about the double-tap thing?

look at the CV-212 and CV-213, and the CP-40.

I've seen them, they're all supposed to be improvements. RMB had it as a burst weapon, CWC removed burst in RoF to contrast with the new pulse lasers, RUE added it back.

Unfortunately, all the threads before 2004 seem to have been archived, so I can't access them.

Sadly I don't think the Wayback Machine was around before then so external archives probably aren't likely. Here's hoping it's locked in a hard drive in some basement waiting to be reborn someday rather than erased.

IIRC, that's not what happened in RUE.
It's just what it looked like.
What actually happened was that they somehow screwed up, swapping the damage from the C-12 and the CV-212
I think they fixed it in later editions, and currently the C-12 currently has a 3-shot burst that does 4d6 MD.

Although http://www.palladium-megaverse.com/cutt ... Eratta.pdf adds back the 4D6, it does not mention that this damage is due to bursting. As phrased, you can do a 3-shot burst with 2d6/4d6/6d6. Is it phrased differently between this cutting-room errata and the actual in-book?

Either way, they've clarified that the second setting is a burst setting, not a single-shot setting.
Which it was always meant to be, it's just that the original description wasn't clear.

There is no proof that this is how it was 'always meant to be', that's mere heresay. It's hard to believe since this would be inferior to the L-20. 4d6x5 or 4d6x3 is more competetive.

To help you out, here's a link to an old thread about it: viewtopic.php?p=444391#p444391

Since I can't bump this, will repost what seems key from your OP there.

somebody online argued with me and a bunch of other people, claiming that the 4d6 setting was actually the burst setting. We argued back and forth, and eventually the thread died. I'm finally convinced that they were right.

But I recently looked up the C-12 to compare it to it's replacement, the CP-40

It seems to me that trying to reason how the C-12 originally worked based upon how a new gun works is backwards =/ The key problem here is the C-12 is never described as a pulse weapon. Pulse-fire may be a separate setting, but that doesn't mean burst fire is. Burst fire is an effect of how many times you pull the trigger for semi-auto (or hold it down for full-auto) whereas pulse-mode requires single trigger pull with no hold.

drops the C-12 from being one of the best rifles in the entire game to being one of the dumbest rifles in the entire games.

Naw, being able to fire 180 SDC laser blasts with a long clip is kind of neat. Would let you manage non-MDC opponents better. You could easily kill or wound multiple people this way when against mass numbers, or conserve on e-clip recharge costs if you're far from base.

The CS makes a light laser rifle (the C-10) and finds that their troops fire on full auto too often and that they run out of ammo too fast.
So they tinker with the design a bit and come up with the C-12.
Essentially the same gun with an E-cannister in addition to the clip, and a specific burst setting instead of fully automatic firing.

The problem here is that a short burst with the C-10 in RMB would do 4d6 for only 4 shots, and this was pre-CB so there wasn't much wasteful about long or full bursts, plus the C-12 could long/full burst in RMB before CWC changed its RoF.

Since the C-10 still has a listed ROF of "Aimed, burst, or wild", it can fire a single 2d6 shot or a 4d6 double-tap.

Or, as one of your poll options says, you can interpret that to mean 4d6x2 double-tap. The '5 shot burst' could be a super-efficient long-burst which gives a x3 (per CB, as x5 is a handful I guess) but costs 25% rather than 50% of the clip.

ignore the C-12 and move on to the CP-40. This is obviously what KS wants.

For the CS front-line sure, but I think he'd want to see the C-12 on the black market. Making it suck kind of helps keep the CS on edge with their CWC stuff tho.

I like the C-12. It's old school. It looks cool. I've grown fond of it.

C-10 is MORE old-school, have we ever got a pic of it? I figure it looks same minus that bulky circle thing behind the handle which looks like where an e-cannister would go.

RUE is funny, lists the C-10 laser-target as something you can buy for any weapon but the context for how it fails is only under the C-10.

The C-10 is less powerful than the C-12 because it is only capable of burst firing instead of pulse firing

Burst firing rules are BETTER though. 2d6x2 for 4 shots versus 4d6 for 5 shots. But if you make it any better it's suddenly as good as the new pulse weapons =/

[Jefffar]

I think the C-12's odd damage and burst rules issues have already been discussed to death in other topics.

In regards to the e-clip capacity issue, I've debated assigning a value of 'power points' to each style of eclip and similar then giving each weapon a stat about how many power points it consumes a shot, just to make these sorts of questions irrelevant. However that is a lot of work, so in the mean time a little math to determine the portion of the e-clip that is left and how many shots that would be in the new weapon (always rounding down).

[Killer Cyborg]

I think the C-12's odd damage and burst rules issues have already been discussed to death in other topics.

Apparently not.
And at this point, most of the real discussion has been archived, so people can't even read it anymore.

Although, if Kevin Siembieda saying so isn't good enough, I'm not sure what would be.

[Jefffar]

I think the C-12's odd damage and burst rules issues have already been discussed to death in other topics.

Apparently not.
And at this point, most of the real discussion has been archived, so people can't even read it anymore.

Although, if Kevin Siembieda saying so isn't good enough, I'm not sure what would be.

Part of the reason is that when you do a search on the board for C-12 it ignores the 12 part because of the - in front of it and the C then gets ignored as it's a lone letter. So it's impossible to find results for the term C-12.

The other problem is that it usually shows up within topics not about the C-12 as an off topic discussion, exactly like is happening here.

Let's steer this one back to topic please.

[Tor]

Tried putting "c-12" as sometimes quotes help to specify a continuous string but it appears this doesn't work with this software like it does Google. I guess we could try searching for the written name rather than the code. Realizing this would at least encourage us to do that when naming future threads about weapons. Using the short-form in a thread title is fine so long as we also use the full name too I guess.

Having made the thread I don't mind I guess the main issue is that the published (via print or net) stuff doesn't seem to reflect this mysterious convention discussion with KS. I mean, what if this was discussed at an after-hours bar and one or both parties were tipsy and mis-spoke/misheard during the Q or A? Conventions are also sometimes noisy/distracting, easy to misunderstand conversation at them.

Am wondering, to branch closer to the orig topic though, if there is someways to exploit the inconsistent short/long clip ratio to make a perpetual energy generator.

[Shark_Force]

you could always try a site-restricted google search. i personally don't care enough to do one, but it is an option.

[flatline]

you could always try a site-restricted google search. i personally don't care enough to do one, but it is an option.

I do that quite often, actually. I have better luck that way than using the in-forum search facility. Especially if I remember the author.

--flatline

[Blue_Lion]

I had to deal with this from a slightly difrent stand point when I GM I tend to enocrage opertors and TWs to desine new gear. created a massive compiled list of rules I use called tech builders guide to cover every thing from building weapons and armor to PA and robots and vehicles. (very extensive list of options.)

I found I needed a way to have consistency between the number of shots between e-clips and long e-clips as well as payload of similar weapons. The solution I came up with was to assign a e-clip a standard number of d6s in out put. Then the weapon uses X number of D6s per shot. (1d4X10 would use 6d6s)
This made had the side affect of making switching between weapons easer to track as it is now basic math.

But then that is all house ruled and not right for every one.

[eliakon]

I had to deal with this from a slightly difrent stand point when I GM I tend to enocrage opertors and TWs to desine new gear. created a massive compiled list of rules I use called tech builders guide to cover every thing from building weapons and armor to PA and robots and vehicles. (very extensive list of options.)

I found I needed a way to have consistency between the number of shots between e-clips and long e-clips as well as payload of similar weapons. The solution I came up with was to assign a e-clip a standard number of d6s in out put. Then the weapon uses X number of D6s per shot. (1d4X10 would use 6d6s)
This made had the side affect of making switching between weapons easer to track as it is now basic math.

But then that is all house ruled and not right for every one.

But an interesting one. And one I just may borrow.

[Blue_Lion]

I had to deal with this from a slightly difrent stand point when I GM I tend to enocrage opertors and TWs to desine new gear. created a massive compiled list of rules I use called tech builders guide to cover every thing from building weapons and armor to PA and robots and vehicles. (very extensive list of options.)

I found I needed a way to have consistency between the number of shots between e-clips and long e-clips as well as payload of similar weapons. The solution I came up with was to assign a e-clip a standard number of d6s in out put. Then the weapon uses X number of D6s per shot. (1d4X10 would use 6d6s)
This made had the side affect of making switching between weapons easer to track as it is now basic math.

But then that is all house ruled and not right for every one.

But an interesting one. And one I just may borrow.

You are more than welcome to do so. You might want to give some weapons qualities that affect the usage based on the flavor text. Such as energy efficient (reduce the number of die used) or energy consumer (increase the number of die used.)

[SpiritInterface]

Not sure what you mean about that, we're talking about keeping track of how much energy is left in a clip. There is no syncing. It draws on a given amount of energy to make a shot equal to 1 divided by the number of shots you get from the clip multiplied by how many shots you made.

Oh I understand what you are talking about, but that is based on the assumption that you can swap partially used e-clips between weapons. I was saying that I don't think you can.

Why do you think that? They're interchangeable batteries, have you ever had problems swapping a partially drained battery (say from one remote to another) from one suitable device to another and had it not work because the new device wasn't the device that first started draining it?

They are not quite interchangeable, not all remotes take the same batteries. To make that argument is based on the assumption that all energy weapons have the same draw, the same Volt/Amp rating. if that was so then they all would use the same charge per shot.

They are more akin to a variable capacitor that can be synced to the draw of the weapon when it fires the first shot.

[Nightmask]

Not sure what you mean about that, we're talking about keeping track of how much energy is left in a clip. There is no syncing. It draws on a given amount of energy to make a shot equal to 1 divided by the number of shots you get from the clip multiplied by how many shots you made.

Oh I understand what you are talking about, but that is based on the assumption that you can swap partially used e-clips between weapons. I was saying that I don't think you can.

Why do you think that? They're interchangeable batteries, have you ever had problems swapping a partially drained battery (say from one remote to another) from one suitable device to another and had it not work because the new device wasn't the device that first started draining it?

They are not quite interchangeable, not all remotes take the same batteries. To make that argument is based on the assumption that all energy weapons have the same draw, the same Volt/Amp rating. if that was so then they all would use the same charge per shot.

They are more akin to a variable capacitor that can be synced to the draw of the weapon when it fires the first shot.

Except they are interchangeable, all Pistol E-clips are physically identical they don't have different Pistol e-clips for different Energy Pistols. Just as I can take the AA batteries from one remote and put them into another, even though it has slightly different drains on the batteries, without trouble, so to can you do the same with Pistol e-clips between pistols, Rifle e-clips between rifles, etc. The energy weapons are built around those standardized power suppplies (i.e. E-clips) and the E-clips overly are meant to work in all weapons mean to take that e-clip.

While some GM want to make things far more difficult for the players by having every gun manufacturer creating e-clips that aren't physically compatible with any other weapons so they're stuck with dozens of different types of e-clips because Pistol A won't take Pistol B's e-clip because they're made not to fit that's not the canon of things. You don't have AA, AA1, AA2, AA3, etc clips that are all basically AA batteries but shaped so you can't use them interchangeably just AA. It also doesn't make sense from a marketing standpoint, people aren't going to buy your weapons if they can't easily acquire new E-clips for them and of course you can't sell any E-clips to anyone who doesn't have your weapons because you made it so your E-clips won't work in their weapons so when they find your company they move on because you have nothing worth buying.

[Library Ogre]

To an extent, e-clips are an abstraction, kind of like credits. In a wholly realistic world, it probably makes sense for there to be varying standards for them... the CS credit v. the NGR credit v. the South American credit, with exchange rates between them. Likewise, while it's relatively reasonable that all Earth weapons would use the same e-clip (based on wide distributed technology from before the CoR), there's little reason to assume that Atlantis or Phase World e-clips would be the same... even if they store similar amounts of energy, they may have the little guide groove in the wrong place, or different connectors, or different handshake protocols, or whatever. All that's abstracted to avoid having to work too hard at the less-fun-bits.

That said, I like Blue Lion's solution, and find it somewhat reminds me of the power management rules out of the early Mechanoids stuff... your power plant can only produce so much energy at one time. If you try to do too much, then you'll have to prioritize things, and drop a few things.

[flatline]

I had to deal with this from a slightly difrent stand point when I GM I tend to enocrage opertors and TWs to desine new gear. created a massive compiled list of rules I use called tech builders guide to cover every thing from building weapons and armor to PA and robots and vehicles. (very extensive list of options.)

I found I needed a way to have consistency between the number of shots between e-clips and long e-clips as well as payload of similar weapons. The solution I came up with was to assign a e-clip a standard number of d6s in out put. Then the weapon uses X number of D6s per shot. (1d4X10 would use 6d6s)
This made had the side affect of making switching between weapons easer to track as it is now basic math.

But then that is all house ruled and not right for every one.

1d4x10 is actually closer to 7d6. But it is nicer to your players to treat it as 6d6 for ammo tracking purposes.

--flatline

[guardiandashi]

you know in a way the discussion about the device energy consumption for eclips reminds me of the practical aspect of the AA battery argument

I had an issue with AA batteries a while ago, in order to be a bit more "green" I ended up buying a charger and a bunch of the rechargables. So I had AA batteries in: a wireless Logitech trackman mouse, xbox 360 controllers, a digital camera, and various remote controllers. Sometimes one of those devices would not be working and I didn't have any charged batteries available so I would move the batteries around, but they all used slightly different amounts of energy (the mouse, and digital camera seemed to use the most) but all within the range that the batteries could power.

I realize that realistically I would expect the eclips to work on several standards:
1 energy is energy so the clips just hold a certain amount, and release it upon demand.
2 I expect there are (on earth) there are more or less "universal" physical form factors
3 I could see several "sets" of "standard" sizes. ones designed to fit in weapons like pistols and rifles, another that is designed to fit in vibro weapons (if they don't fit the standard weapon eclip) ones designed to fit various electronic devices such as shields, computers etc. if they again don't fit the standard eclips.
4 there are a few "new" standard sizes that have been released reciently such as the FS E clip, the Canister e clip and the "long eclip" but most of those either work with existing standards, or have an adapter cable option to get around compatibility issues.

[Nightmask]

To an extent, e-clips are an abstraction, kind of like credits. In a wholly realistic world, it probably makes sense for there to be varying standards for them... the CS credit v. the NGR credit v. the South American credit, with exchange rates between them. Likewise, while it's relatively reasonable that all Earth weapons would use the same e-clip (based on wide distributed technology from before the CoR), there's little reason to assume that Atlantis or Phase World e-clips would be the same... even if they store similar amounts of energy, they may have the little guide groove in the wrong place, or different connectors, or different handshake protocols, or whatever. All that's abstracted to avoid having to work too hard at the less-fun-bits.

That said, I like Blue Lion's solution, and find it somewhat reminds me of the power management rules out of the early Mechanoids stuff... your power plant can only produce so much energy at one time. If you try to do too much, then you'll have to prioritize things, and drop a few things.

I don't think anyone does assume Phase World e-clips are identical to Earth e-clips, particularly since the books make it clear that they aren't. Same with Archon E-clips and Russian E-clips.

[Killer Cyborg]

To an extent, e-clips are an abstraction, kind of like credits. In a wholly realistic world, it probably makes sense for there to be varying standards for them... the CS credit v. the NGR credit v. the South American credit, with exchange rates between them. Likewise, while it's relatively reasonable that all Earth weapons would use the same e-clip (based on wide distributed technology from before the CoR), there's little reason to assume that Atlantis or Phase World e-clips would be the same... even if they store similar amounts of energy, they may have the little guide groove in the wrong place, or different connectors, or different handshake protocols, or whatever. All that's abstracted to avoid having to work too hard at the less-fun-bits.

That said, I like Blue Lion's solution, and find it somewhat reminds me of the power management rules out of the early Mechanoids stuff... your power plant can only produce so much energy at one time. If you try to do too much, then you'll have to prioritize things, and drop a few things.

I don't think anyone does assume Phase World e-clips are identical to Earth e-clips, particularly since the books make it clear that they aren't. Same with Archon E-clips and Russian E-clips.

That would be the "extent" that Mark mentions at the start of his post.
The non-extent would be that as a rule, most guns on Rifts Earth use "standard" e-clips that are interchangeable between weapons, as opposed to a Wilk's 320 clip being incompatible with a Wilk's 447 clip, or a CS clip being incompatible with a Wilk's gun, and so forth.

[Blue_Lion]

I had to deal with this from a slightly difrent stand point when I GM I tend to enocrage opertors and TWs to desine new gear. created a massive compiled list of rules I use called tech builders guide to cover every thing from building weapons and armor to PA and robots and vehicles. (very extensive list of options.)

I found I needed a way to have consistency between the number of shots between e-clips and long e-clips as well as payload of similar weapons. The solution I came up with was to assign a e-clip a standard number of d6s in out put. Then the weapon uses X number of D6s per shot. (1d4X10 would use 6d6s)
This made had the side affect of making switching between weapons easer to track as it is now basic math.

But then that is all house ruled and not right for every one.

1d4x10 is actually closer to 7d6. But it is nicer to your players to treat it as 6d6 for ammo tracking purposes.

--flatline

The 6 was a type-o but yes if you wanted to be nice you could round up instead of down.

[Blue_Lion]

To an extent, e-clips are an abstraction, kind of like credits. In a wholly realistic world, it probably makes sense for there to be varying standards for them... the CS credit v. the NGR credit v. the South American credit, with exchange rates between them. Likewise, while it's relatively reasonable that all Earth weapons would use the same e-clip (based on wide distributed technology from before the CoR), there's little reason to assume that Atlantis or Phase World e-clips would be the same... even if they store similar amounts of energy, they may have the little guide groove in the wrong place, or different connectors, or different handshake protocols, or whatever. All that's abstracted to avoid having to work too hard at the less-fun-bits.

That said, I like Blue Lion's solution, and find it somewhat reminds me of the power management rules out of the early Mechanoids stuff... your power plant can only produce so much energy at one time. If you try to do too much, then you'll have to prioritize things, and drop a few things.

I just find that it is easer to control power creep and track things if you assign a set value of what things can do. I have the old mechonoids stuff but never got around to reading it. (Given that I let operators and TW design gear control of munchkin creep is a little important.)

[Jefffar]

I'd think that, for North America at least, we'd see e-clips standardized around what was bought by the US military, which would in turn be bought by the Canadian and Mexican militaries, NEMA and law enforcement agencies.

Due to the ubiquity of the format, post apocalypse manufacturers would probably keep it.

The other major powers may develop their own formats (ie Triax FSE-clips and Russian G-Clips) or stick with the format chosen by the US military depending on what made the most sense for them.

[eliakon]

I'd think that, for North America at least, we'd see e-clips standardized around what was bought by the US military, which would in turn be bought by the Canadian and Mexican militaries, NEMA and law enforcement agencies.

Due to the ubiquity of the format, post apocalypse manufacturers would probably keep it.

The other major powers may develop their own formats (ie Triax FSE-clips and Russian G-Clips) or stick with the format chosen by the US military depending on what made the most sense for them.

Even if we have just a couple terran formats...
every alien race should have its own format (Venurlian, Atlantian, Splugorthian, Khree-lok)
The Chinese should probably have a regional clip
I can see the CS making its own clip just to prevent their military hard-ware being used by outsiders

[Jefffar]

The CS, like everybody else, copied the standard American format when they copied the old NEMA weapons. In a post apocalyptic warzone like they evolved in, the economy of producing more eclips (and using recovered or captured stock) likely trumped being able to prevent others from using their weapons and eclips.

We do know from the descriptions of Naruni weapons that a different eclip format is used in the three galaxies. I expect the picture is similar their with major power blocks having their own formats and the lesser powers saving money by adopting the format used by the big boys. The exception seems to be Naruni Enterprises, they seem willing to make weapons compatible with local eclips but promote adaptationof their preferred standard .

[Library Ogre]

The CS, like everybody else, copied the standard American format when they copied the old NEMA weapons. In a post apocalyptic warzone like they evolved in, the economy of producing more eclips (and using recovered or captured stock) likely trumped being able to prevent others from using their weapons and eclips.

The manufacturing is a good point; the CS has explicitly made use of old NEMA manufacturing facilities, and I don't doubt they were happy to toss them out by the ton.

[Blue_Lion]

The CS, like everybody else, copied the standard American format when they copied the old NEMA weapons. In a post apocalyptic warzone like they evolved in, the economy of producing more eclips (and using recovered or captured stock) likely trumped being able to prevent others from using their weapons and eclips.

The manufacturing is a good point; the CS has explicitly made use of old NEMA manufacturing facilities, and I don't doubt they were happy to toss them out by the ton.

Yea that is kinda how I feel about the Cs but I could see Bandito or NG trying producing a weapon line that use a "better" e-clip to lock them in as custmters that need to by replacements from them.