ATL-7 modified

Ley Line walkers, Juicers, Coalition Troops, Samas, Tolkeen, & The Federation Of Magic. Come together here to discuss all things Rifts®.

Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones

Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Mack wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6. ;)

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.


Even if I do groups of 3, I still had 2 18's to his 1.

But if as I stated the average is the same, but I have an a broader range of damage roll for roll vs 3d6.

All I have said is 3d6 is "stuck at average" vs 1d6 having the full spectrum

I rolled more 1's than he rolled 3's and i rolled more 6's than he rolled 18. He was "average" 60% of the time.

I rolled 56 6's. 18.67%
Vs has single 18.
25% of those 6 were in strings of 3 or more.
Last edited by Hawk258 on Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Hawk258 wrote:
Mack wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6. ;)

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.


Even if I do groups of 3, I still had 2 18's to his 1.

But if as I stated the average is the same, but I have an a broader range of damage roll for roll vs 3d6.

All I have said is 3d6 is "stuck at average" vs 1d6 having the full spectrum

I rolled more 1's than he rolled 3's and i rolled more 6's than he rolled 18. He was "average" 60% of the time.

I rolled 6's 17%.

Stop being dishonest. You did not include the data for actual die results. You only gave totals for 3d6. We have no idea how many dice came up 1 or 6 in the 3d6 results you provided.

1d6 is just as "stuck at average" if you roll it 3 times as 3d6 is. Stop ignoring that your overall damage results debunked your theory that 1d6 is better than 3d6. Stop acting like rolling 1, 1, 6, 6, 6, 1 has any kind of advantage over rolling 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3. They both add up to 21.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

dreicunan wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
Mack wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6. ;)

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.


Even if I do groups of 3, I still had 2 18's to his 1.

But if as I stated the average is the same, but I have an a broader range of damage roll for roll vs 3d6.

All I have said is 3d6 is "stuck at average" vs 1d6 having the full spectrum

I rolled more 1's than he rolled 3's and i rolled more 6's than he rolled 18. He was "average" 60% of the time.

I rolled 6's 17%.

Stop being dishonest. You did not include the data for actual die results. You only gave totals for 3d6. We have no idea how many dice came up 1 or 6 in the 3d6 results you provided.

1d6 is just as "stuck at average" if you roll it 3 times as 3d6 is. Stop ignoring that your overall damage results debunked your theory that 1d6 is better than 3d6. Stop acting like rolling 1, 1, 6, 6, 6, 1 has any kind of advantage over rolling 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 3. They both add up to 21.



Is that how you roll damage? 3d6 for the ATL?

I gave you 3d6 at 100 rolls twice using anydice.

And 1d6 at 100.

Are the averages roughly equal?

Is the distribution of results expected by roll?

Actually you did better than average.

Is it dishonest?

Is 1 roughly represented 17%, 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? For 1d6?

Is 8-13 60% of your totals?

Is 1 18 better than .46%?

Is distribution of 6 even?

Are the averages of both groups equal?

And is 20% 3 to 7 and is 20% 14 to 18?

And what are the odds of rolling 24 on 4d6? .08? I beat those odds too.

At 17% there is no rule of distribution.
Last edited by Hawk258 on Thu Feb 21, 2019 3:52 am, edited 4 times in total.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Curbludgeon
Hero
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Comment: They/Them

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Curbludgeon »

I'm sure there is something in Palladium that procs on a max damage roll, but I'll be dipped if I can't think of one. Maybe an explosion's area of effect? In those situations having fewer/smaller dice to roll can be useful (e.g. In Savage Worlds games a d4 is often better for a stat than a d6 due to exploding dice), but otherwise a preference for seeing die maximums while the average remains constant is just a preference.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

This what I have tried to explain repeatedly. Just because I roll a 6 in 1 action doesn't mean my odds change in the next.

Each action is new. 1 chance in 6, there is no guarantee of equal distribution. It's not like the 6 vanishes if I roll a 6 in the previous action. that is just chance.

There is no guarantee of equal distribution either.

With more variables per action the odds go down.

And why rolling an 18 with 1 action and 3 dice is worse off and why rolls are "average" 60% of the time.

The only "rule" of distribution is law of average and that takes time. The more frequently I roll the 1d6 the more accurate the average.

Just like rolling 18 more than once in 100 rolls, not impossible. Just hard as hell.

Good example.

Take my 2 1d6 results and compare each roll. How often does 12 roll up?

Then take the 2 3d6 results and compare them to 6d6.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Let's see 6d6 has 3.5% of 29 or higher. Let's count how often 100 rolls (one result table) 2d6 beat those odds.12 times he rolled 29 or better. 6% vs 3.5% see?
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

I added up the first results of 1d6 vs 3d6

And I treated them accordingly. 1d6x10 and 3d6x10+20

Here is what you get

1d6
1053 (total face value)
10530 total damage (×10 modifier)
Average
3.51 (almost dead on)

Now 3d6
1081 (total face value 28 better less than 3%)
12810 (×10+2000 modifier (22.8% better with the 2000 modifier)
3.6 face value average (0.09 better)
4.27 modified value.
.76 better less than 1 md per action improvement)
Point for point I don't see much advantage there.

Especially getting 3d6+2 worth of free points every shot.

2% of 3d6 was 200 md. (maximum natural damage)

More than 17% of 1d6 was 60 md (maximum natural damage)
Of that 4 strings of three or more 6's
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Both of your attempts to prove that 1d6 is somehow favorable to 3d6 for a total of 300d6 failed to demonstrate your predicted advantage to rolling 1d6. You just can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that the value of x+x+x=3x. That is true for any value of x, including when x is a d6. You keep on harping about how there is no guarantee of equal distribution, while ignoring that the same applies to 3d6! Your argument is literally "I don't want to roll three dice, instead I want to roll three dice, but one at a time." Guess what, if you included the actual die results for 3d6, instead of just the total values, you'd see that each result came up one sixth of the time, too. For all we know, the 3d6 produced MORE results of 3 sixes in a row, but they didn't show up in you summation because they were in batches like 1,6,6, 6,2,1, 4,5,6, 6,6,2. THAT is what is dishonest in both your presentation and your basic premise.

So sure, you'll feel like 1d6 is giving you more moments of max damage, but you'd feel that way even more often with 1d4, 1d3, or 1d2. But that feeling of "ooh, max damage" doesn't mean much, because over time you will be "stuck at average" as well.

Once, again, compare a 1d6 and a 3d2 die weapon. The 3d2 die weapon only has a 12.5% chance of max damage, but averages 4.5, with a min of 3. Given those choices, you'd be a fool to take a 1d6 weapon.

Or how about this, instead of 3d6x10+20, make the damage code 1d100+100. Only a 1% chance of max damage. Is it a superior or inferior weapon to the 3d6x10+20 weapon?
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Okay, here let me try this.

Each 1d6 will roll a 6 17% of the time.
However each die is independent.

Meaning they will rarely synchronize.

Example:
300d6
1d6 #1
output 1: 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 1, 4, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 2, 5, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 1, 2, 1, 2, 5, 2, 5, 5, 4, 5, 6, 2, 1, 6, 1, 4, 1, 6, 3, 2, 5, 1, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 5, 1, 5, 1, 6, 3, 6, 6, 2, 5, 4, 3, 5, 6, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 6, 1, 3, 3, 1, 6, 1, 1, 3, 2, 6, 6, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 4, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 4, 2

1d6 #2
output 2: 5, 1, 4, 1, 3, 6, 3, 6, 3, 2, 1, 5, 4, 6, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 1, 3, 6, 4, 1, 2, 5, 4, 5, 1, 1, 3, 5, 1, 1, 2, 4, 1, 1, 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 2, 6, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 1, 5, 2, 6, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 3, 4, 5, 1, 5, 4, 3, 6, 6, 5, 5, 2, 5, 6, 5, 1, 5, 2, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 3, 5, 3, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6

1d6 #3
output 3: 2, 2, 4, 5, 4, 2, 6, 1, 4, 3, 1, 4, 4, 6, 2, 6, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 4, 6, 4, 6, 4, 2, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 2, 5, 6, 2, 6, 5, 5, 1, 3, 4, 4, 2, 2, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 6, 1, 4, 6, 3, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 6, 2, 4, 4, 5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 3, 4, 6, 2, 6, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 2, 4, 4, 3

Now each die rolled and if you look (while far worse than mine) still beat the "average" individually by rolling 3 sets of the same number back to back"

But if you look
First roll
Die 1] 3
Die 2] 5
Die 3] 2
Total] 10

Second roll
Die 1] 3
Die 2] 1
Die 3] 2
Total] 6

If you take 1d6 300 times (300d6)
output 4: 2, 6, 2, 6, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 3, 6, 2, 1, 3, 4, 3, 3, 6, 2, 6, 1, 2, 1, 5, 3, 4, 2, 6, 4, 2, 3, 6, 1, 3, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 2, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 5, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 1, 1, 5, 1, 5, 6, 4, 1, 4, 3, 1, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 2, 6, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 3, 6, 6, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, 2, 4, 5, 5, 4, 1, 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 5, 5, 6, 4, 5, 6, 6, 2, 1, 4, 4, 2, 3, 2, 6, 5, 2, 6, 3, 2, 5, 1, 5, 1, 4, 3, 1, 6, 3, 5, 5, 3, 3, 1, 5, 5, 6, 3, 5, 5, 5, 2, 2, 1, 5, 2, 3, 1, 4, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 4, 6, 4, 3, 2, 2, 6, 2, 1, 4, 2, 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 4, 5, 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 4, 2, 1, 5, 1, 3, 5, 5, 4, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 6, 4, 4, 1, 3, 2, 6, 1, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 5, 6, 1, 2, 5, 3, 5, 1, 5, 4, 3, 5, 1, 1, 4, 6, 4, 1, 3, 6, 2, 6, 2, 3, 5, 5, 3, 3, 6, 1, 3, 4, 1, 1, 5, 4, 5, 4, 6, 1, 3, 3, 4, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 3, 5, 1, 4, 2, 4, 5, 1, 3, 4, 2, 3, 2

Each die had a 17% count of 6's. But the lack of distribution rules (chance) gives you greater chances for runs of 6. On a single die

Each action is independent.

Each die is independent

The law of averages says you will get 16.67% of 6's one 1 die.
It doesn't say that another die has to do it at the same time.
And it doesn't say 1 die can't do it repeatedly.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Hawk, you can slice it any way you like. You have no greater chance for a RUN of sixes by rolling 1d6 than by rolling 3d6, because all 3d6 means is that you roll 1d6 three times. You can do that all at the same time or you can do that sequentially, all on the same action or over the course of three actions. All that matter is the number of dice rolled.

In other words, x+x+x=3x. 1d6+1d6+1d6=3d6. The probability of any individual die having a specific result (1/6) applies to 300 rolls of 1d6 the same way that they do to 100 rolls of 3d6. You odds of seeing a given number of repeated results sequentially is always the same for a given number of repeated results. The odds or rolling seven 4s in a row is the same as rolling seven 6s in a row (1 in 279,936). Now, if you already have rolled seven 6s in a row, it is true that the odds for the next d6 rolled resulting in a 6 are 1 in 6. However, that also doesn't change the fact that actually getting eight sixes (or eight 3s, or 8 5s) in a row is 1 in 1,679,616. The only reason that 1d6 might appear to give better odds than 3d6 of a run is that you aren't grouping your 1d6 results and 3d6 results in the same way.

Take this as an example, 3 d6 dice, one red, one blue, one green, all completely identical and constructed so as to utterly be without bias. You always roll them and/or take the results in the order red, blue, green, regardless of if they are rolled one at a time, three at a time, or any other number at a time. When you do that (actually setting the same conditions for measuring the results), you'll see that the odds of a run of any individual number are the same regardless of how you roll the dice (and indeed would hold true for rolling other combos like 2d6 or 5d6.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Really? 1 die 17% chance of a 6 each roll.

Vs

3 dice and .46% of an 18.

I just demonstrated that above.

What are the odds of rolling 4 6's? And twice?

Or six 3's?

I just gave you 3 100 rolls of 3 independent dice.

And 300 rolls of 1.

I gave you 200 3d6 and 600 1d6.

You see the results

If there were a law of distribution gambling wouldn't be gambling.

That 6 doesn't vanish if I roll too many 6's

I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6
A 5 in 6 chance of anything other than.

Nothing says it has to come up every 6th roll.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Hawk258 wrote:Really? 1 die 17% chance of a 6 each roll.

Vs

3 dice and .46% of an 18.

I just demonstrated that above.

What are the odds of rolling 4 6's? And twice?
Rolling 4 sixes in a row is 1 in 1,296. Twice is either 1 in 36 if you meant two sixes in a row or 1 in 1,679,616 if you meant 4 in a row twice for a total of 8 in a row.

Hawk258 wrote:Or six 3's?
Six 3s in a row is 1 in 46,656.

Hawk258 wrote:I just gave you 3 100 rolls of 3 independent dice.

And 300 rolls of 1.

I gave you 200 3d6 and 600 1d6.

You see the results

If there were a law of distribution gambling wouldn't be gambling.

That 6 doesn't vanish if I roll too many 6's

I have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6
A 5 in 6 chance of anything other than.

Nothing says it has to come up every 6th roll.

Hawk, Casinos exist precisely because, despite there being a lack of a "law of distribution", probability is a thing, and over the long term the odds favor the house. This is really a mind-boggling situation, because you seem to be confusing a set of results as indicative of probability. They aren't. If you roll a d6 100,000,000 times and 40% of the results are sixes, odds are the die is flawed or loaded (pun intended).

This is really baffling to me, because you've been provided with multiple resources and multiple good explanations, and you get right to the cusp, it seems, and then fall back into a misunderstanding based on the mistaken belief that the odds of 300d6 producing a given sequential result changes based on how many dice are rolled at once. Properly controlled (as I already illustrated), it doesn't matter how many dice are rolled at once. The probabilities remain the same.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Hawk258 wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?


I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $2 (edited missed 1) okay so depending on

Guys I do believe the numbers listed here have been manipulated. When I broke his 300 1d6 rolls into groups of three not counting the 2;(the roll format number) there was an extra number. Combined with his inability to understand how proabilty works despite many resources provided and explanation he appears to be trolling.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Blue_Lion wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?


I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $2 (edited missed 1) okay so depending on

Guys I do believe the numbers listed here have been manipulated. When I broke his 300 1d6 rolls into groups of three not counting the 2;(the roll format number) there was an extra number. Combined with his inability to understand how proabilty works despite many resources provided and explanation he appears to be trolling.


Ignore the first 2 with the : simple solution.

That is twice you have accused me of trolling.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

What is being miss represented is "likelyhood"

Yes the "likelihood" of rolling multiple 6's based on "laws of average would suggest is slim"

However
Each individual roll has a 17% chance regardless of (likelihood) or previous outcome.

And in terms of "odds" I will take my 17% to roll a 6 every time
Over 3d6 in a the case of the 3d6x10+20 in 1 roll in 3 actions vs 1d6x10 in 3 three actions. Because each roll gives me 17% regardless of implied outcome.

1d6 Odds 1 in 6 each action 17% vs 3d6 odds 1 in 18 or 5.5% each action. Or probability 17% in 1 roll vs .46% in 1 roll

While the "probability" is low the odds in a short run are always good. 3d6 beat the odds at 2% in 100 rolls. 1.54% better.
Last edited by Hawk258 on Thu Feb 21, 2019 2:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Blue_Lion
Knight
Posts: 6226
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Clone Lab 27

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Blue_Lion »

Hawk258 wrote:
Blue_Lion wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?


I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $2 (edited missed 1) okay so depending on

Guys I do believe the numbers listed here have been manipulated. When I broke his 300 1d6 rolls into groups of three not counting the 2;(the roll format number) there was an extra number. Combined with his inability to understand how proabilty works despite many resources provided and explanation he appears to be trolling.

T
Ignore the first 2 with the : simple solution.

That is twice you have accused me of trolling.

I did and even said I did not include it because it was the roll format number.
The Clones are coming you shall all be replaced, but who is to say you have not been replaced already.

Master of Type-O and the obvios.

Soon my army oc clones and winged-monkies will rule the world but first, must .......

I may debate canon and RAW, but the games I run are highly house ruled. So I am not debating for how I play but about how the system works as written.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Probability and odds are 2 different measures.

Probability is likelihood or assumption of outcome based on long calculations.

ODDS are a ratio of actual possible outcomes in an single action.

The odds don't change action to action probability does.

However if probability were a "good measure" of outcome over actual outcome and laws of average we would have more people winning the lottery.

Probability wants you to think you "can't" reality is you can.
Odds are "real possible outcomes" probability is assumption.

As demonstrated by the various roll results 1d6 odds exceed probability by leaps and bounds. Reality vs probability are rarely in agreement.

On the first 4 1d6 vs 3d6
10 strings of three 6's were rolled in 900 rolls that's over 1% double what .46% predicted. There should have been only 3 or 4.

And 2 strings of four 6' should not have happened at all.

If I had bet $1 that i would roll a 6 each roll and the house paid $16.67 every time i did
I would have paid $300 for the first 300 1d6 result total but hit 52 times in 300 rolls for $866.84 or $566.86 profit.

Or even at $6 each time $312 ($12 profit)
Or even $1.16 for every 6 rolled $8.32 profit.
Either way I won.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Hawk258 wrote:Probability and odds are 2 different measures.

Probability is likelihood or assumption of outcome based on long calculations.

ODDS are a ratio of actual possible outcomes in an single action.

The odds don't change action to action probability does.

However if probability were a "good measure" of outcome over actual outcome and laws of average we would have more people winning the lottery.

Probability wants you to think you "can't" reality is you can.
Odds are "real possible outcomes" probability is assumption.

As demonstrated by the various roll results 1d6 odds exceed probability by leaps and bounds. Reality vs probability are rarely in agreement.

That sounds like some popular definitions that some self-help guru would spout trying to sell a book (and a series of DVDs and workshop experiences involving fire walking, sweat lodges, and leaning against arrow-heads). They aren't the reality, however. Odds and probability are synonymous. There is no difference between them; they are both produced by using the same math. The lottery, like all gambling, works precisely because the number of winners ends up matching odds/probabilities over time (and specifically for the lottery because the jackpots are shared by multiple winners and are dependent upon how much people are spending on the game). They will let you bring a set of rules for blackjack to a casino table and you can bet it exactly...and still lose, because played perfectly according to those rules in a casino you still lose about half a penny for every dollar that you bet. Played imperfectly, you lose more. The only way that you can consistently beat a casino at blackjack is to count cards and not get caught (and good luck doing that, because they are experts at spotting card counters). However, you better believe that casinos love people who think like you do!

So once again, we come back to trying to explain to you that your odds of getting a given number of sixes, or sixes in a row, are exactly the same no matter how many d6 you roll at once.

And please stop saying that the odds are 1 in 18. They aren't. That isn't how odds work. In fact it is impossible to come up with 18 possible outcomes for 3d6 no matter how you define it! You can have 216 (order of dice matters, the way that actually gives probability), 56 (order of dice doesn't matter, just the different combinations), or 16 (number of possible sums of the 3 dice). The odds and the probability of 3d6 producing 18 is 1/216, whether you roll them all at once or one after another.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Odds or probability... its trying to predict an an outcome. Prediction are inaccurate action by action. It takes multiple repeated action to be right. But you don't know till the dice are thrown.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

come up with 18 possible outcomes for 3d6 no matter how you define it! You can have 216 


So in 216 rolls 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls should only happen once. I have shown repeatedly that is not "necessary true" as in 900 it happened 10 time. More than double the prediction.

And 2 strings of four 6's (0.08% chance for 1) which is 1 in 800. For
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Jefffar
Supreme Being
Posts: 8580
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:01 am
Comment: Being a moderator doesn't mean I speak for Palladium Books. It just makes me the lifeguard at their pool.
Location: Unreality
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Jefffar »

Warning: Let's cut out the large blocks of numbers and talk about the ATL-7 please.
Official Hero of the Megaverse

Dead Boy wrote:All hail Jefffar... King of the Mods

Co-Holder with Ice Dragon of the "Lando Calrissian" award for Smooth. - Novastar

Palladium Forums of the Megaverse Rules

If you need to contact Palladium Books for any reason, click here.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Okay how about this modification.

ATL-7PA
Range: same
Damage: 1d6x10+6 or 3d6x10+20 (counts as 2 attacks)(fixed)
Payload: effectively unlimited. Cannot function independently of the power supply.
Last edited by Hawk258 on Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
RockJock
Knight
Posts: 3792
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Nashville.....ish....

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by RockJock »

3d6x10x20???
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

RockJock wrote:3d6x10x20???

Oops fixing
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
RockJock
Knight
Posts: 3792
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Nashville.....ish....

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by RockJock »

Where is Rifts Earth are you playing? I'm assuming in SA.

Ok, so you are looking at this as a tethered, PA/Borg weapon. The 2 attacks/actions for the full powered blast seemed a bit nerfed to me. If you want to limit the shots I would suggest a cool down period, or maximum number of shots per melee. Maybe even a slowdown of the PA/Borg when firing more than one a melee round or something, similar to how some other energy weapons can put a drain on a nuke. This is more of a style difference between how I would limit shots then me saying noway I would allow this. The lighter setting is basically an I-11 Long Gun that trades some range for a bit more damage.

If it was my game I would probably say no to your mods, and my reasoning is purely house rule, but one i am fairly consistent with. The ATL-7, as well as the Long Gun I mentioned always seemed to be aimed shot, single action kinda guns. They don't have to be a sniper rifle exactly, but one shot, re aim, one shot kind of guns. I would let your mod work as is, or with some tweaking for a PA, but not as an assault rifle. The character would need to aim each shot. I do this with any gun that talks about being a sniper, or precision type weapon. The newer Triax book mentions something similar when dealing with a couple of sniper rifles.

Rifts have several rapid fire, high powered energy weapons built around the concept of a Squad Automatic Weapon/suppression fire model. The Wilk's 1000 in Merc Ops, Q2-30 in Free Quebec, or even the Arkon Crew Served Tri-Beam in SA2 fit this bill, and I can see them tethered to a battery pack as their description states, or a nuke working well, and in the role of a PA assault rifle. I would require these to have a dedicated nuke, a capacity/battery that recharged and a slower rate, or a slow down in the PA/Borg being tethered when they were firing all out. If that PA/Borg wanted to carry the ATL-7 I would allow the same sort of setup, but still require the aimed shot. Basically the difference between a super strong guy firing a M-60 or SAW vs the same guy with a Barret Light 50.

Anyway, that is how I would look at it for my game.
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

RockJock wrote:Where is Rifts Earth are you playing? I'm assuming in SA.

Ok, so you are looking at this as a tethered, PA/Borg weapon. The 2 attacks/actions for the full powered blast seemed a bit nerfed to me. If you want to limit the shots I would suggest a cool down period, or maximum number of shots per melee. Maybe even a slowdown of the PA/Borg when firing more than one a melee round or something, similar to how some other energy weapons can put a drain on a nuke. This is more of a style difference between how I would limit shots then me saying noway I would allow this. The lighter setting is basically an I-11 Long Gun that trades some range for a bit more damage.

If it was my game I would probably say no to your mods, and my reasoning is purely house rule, but one i am fairly consistent with. The ATL-7, as well as the Long Gun I mentioned always seemed to be aimed shot, single action kinda guns. They don't have to be a sniper rifle exactly, but one shot, re aim, one shot kind of guns. I would let your mod work as is, or with some tweaking for a PA, but not as an assault rifle. The character would need to aim each shot. I do this with any gun that talks about being a sniper, or precision type weapon. The newer Triax book mentions something similar when dealing with a couple of sniper rifles.

Rifts have several rapid fire, high powered energy weapons built around the concept of a Squad Automatic Weapon/suppression fire model. The Wilk's 1000 in Merc Ops, Q2-30 in Free Quebec, or even the Arkon Crew Served Tri-Beam in SA2 fit this bill, and I can see them tethered to a battery pack as their description states, or a nuke working well, and in the role of a PA assault rifle. I would require these to have a dedicated nuke, a capacity/battery that recharged and a slower rate, or a slow down in the PA/Borg being tethered when they were firing all out. If that PA/Borg wanted to carry the ATL-7 I would allow the same sort of setup, but still require the aimed shot. Basically the difference between a super strong guy firing a M-60 or SAW vs the same guy with a Barret Light 50.

Anyway, that is how I would look at it for my game.



Noted.

That was not my "goal" of this build.

And I did address the heating issue in the first post of this thread. Which also addresses some of the energy issue as well.

And as noted i am "trying" to make the ATL-7 more effective.
As in my opinion it has way too may drawbacks to call this worthwhile in game play.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Hawk258 wrote:
dreicunan wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?


I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3,
2, 5, 2,
4, 3, 5,
6, 3, 5,
4, 2, 2,
3, 3, 1,
6, 4, 3,
1, 5, 5,
3, 1, 2,
2, 4, 1,
3, 1, 1,
1, 2, 4,
5, 1, 6,
6, 5, 5,
4, 1, 2,
3, 3, 6,
1, 2, 2,
4, 2, 3,
3, 3, 4,
6, 4, 3,
3, 1, 6,
5, 6, 5,
2, 3, 1,
5, 2, 3,
6, 4, 4,
4, 6, 4,
6, 1, 2,
6, 3, 6,
5, 6, 6,
2, 3, 1,
1, 2, 4,
2, 6, 5,
3, 1, 5,
1, 1, 4,
1, 3, 3,
5, 2, 5,
2, 4, 6,
3, 3, 6,
1, 6, 4,
2, 6, 5,
6, 4, 6,
4, 1, 6,
3, 3, 2,
1, 2, 2,
4, 2, 1,
3, 1, 2,
1, 3, 5,
5, 6, 6,
3, 3, 3,
6, 6, 4,
6, 4, 5,
1, 3, 3,
4, 5, 4,
1, 4, 2,
2, 5, 5,
6, 4, 3,
4, 1, 4,
5, 1, 5,
5, 2, 5,
2, 3, 2,
1, 2, 3,
5, 2, 6,
6, 2, 2,
5, 2, 6,
5, 6, 1,
6, 6, 6,
3, 2, 4,
2, 5, 3,
3, 1, 3,
5, 2, 2,
3, 2, 3,
1, 5, 3,
1, 4, 6,
4, 6, 2,
3, 3, 6,
6, 6, 5,
6, 1, 5,
1, 1, 1,
1, 5, 6,
6, 6, 6,
4, 4, 1,
4, 4, 6,
3, 3, 6,
6, 6, 2,
1, 6, 4,
4, 2, 3,
3, 4, 5,
4, 3, 5,
5, 1, 5,
6, 3, 3,
4, 5, 6,
2, 2, 3,
4, 3, 1,
6, 2, 3,
4, 6, 3,
4, 6, 6,
5, 3, 2,
1, 4, 3,
2, 2, 5,
1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $2 (edited missed 1) okay so depending on


No sir that is cheating. That was throwing 300 d 6 on a table and collecting three dice that landed near each other.

If they're separated into 100 3d6 groups you get $2 and it is a wash.

Stop cheating and compare what you say your going to compare.
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
User avatar
Zer0 Kay
Megaversal® Ambassador
Posts: 13730
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Location: Snoqualmie, WA

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Zer0 Kay »

Mack wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6. ;)

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.

2 ;)
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper
BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid
Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech
Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus
The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)
Curbludgeon
Hero
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Comment: They/Them

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Curbludgeon »

How should an ATL-7 interact with long E-Clips/CS E-Canisters and Mini-power packs/Russian E-Packs/NG UEL/dedicated nuclear power supplies?

Let's assume any issues with modifying connections are resolved. The book states "It is a one-shot weapon that releases all the energies contained in a normal E-clip in one single shot!" That could be taken to mean that the ATL-7 can only take standard E-Clips, because the gun is designed to drain a clip entirely, regardless of capacity, and a larger capacity energy source will cause the weapon to either not fire or otherwise malfunction. This would cleave closest to the original use of the weapon, as something that takes 3 actions to fire. It would also help emphasize the amount of heat the weapon generates.

Any other approach probably makes the weapon too good. A UEL normally only works with weapons up to 1d6x10. As a bit of an edge case, I don't know if there's anything specifically preventing a gunslinger with w.p. paired firearms from firing two 1d6x10 weapons at once that are UElinked. Nevertheless, I could see infantry in a high powered game using a combination of UEL/Long E-Clips to increase the rate of fire to 2 shots/4 actions, or maybe even 3/5, but I'd be reluctant to just stick one on the back of a jeep being able to fire every action.

Biggest post is not best post.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Curbludgeon wrote:How should an ATL-7 interact with long E-Clips/CS E-Canisters and Mini-power packs/Russian E-Packs/NG UEL/dedicated nuclear power supplies?

Let's assume any issues with modifying connections are resolved. The book states "It is a one-shot weapon that releases all the energies contained in a normal E-clip in one single shot!" That could be taken to mean that the ATL-7 can only take standard E-Clips, because the gun is designed to drain a clip entirely, regardless of capacity, and a larger capacity energy source will cause the weapon to either not fire or otherwise malfunction. This would cleave closest to the original use of the weapon, as something that takes 3 actions to fire. It would also help emphasize the amount of heat the weapon generates.

Any other approach probably makes the weapon too good. A UEL normally only works with weapons up to 1d6x10. As a bit of an edge case, I don't know if there's anything specifically preventing a gunslinger with w.p. paired firearms from firing two 1d6x10 weapons at once that are UElinked. Nevertheless, I could see infantry in a high powered game using a combination of UEL/Long E-Clips to increase the rate of fire to 2 shots/4 actions, or maybe even 3/5, but I'd be reluctant to just stick one on the back of a jeep being able to fire every action.

Biggest post is not best post.

Let it fire every action, and limit it to a 1000 shot battery with a 400 shot back-up battery. There is good precedent for that in Rifts.
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

dreicunan wrote:
Curbludgeon wrote:How should an ATL-7 interact with long E-Clips/CS E-Canisters and Mini-power packs/Russian E-Packs/NG UEL/dedicated nuclear power supplies?

Let's assume any issues with modifying connections are resolved. The book states "It is a one-shot weapon that releases all the energies contained in a normal E-clip in one single shot!" That could be taken to mean that the ATL-7 can only take standard E-Clips, because the gun is designed to drain a clip entirely, regardless of capacity, and a larger capacity energy source will cause the weapon to either not fire or otherwise malfunction. This would cleave closest to the original use of the weapon, as something that takes 3 actions to fire. It would also help emphasize the amount of heat the weapon generates.

Any other approach probably makes the weapon too good. A UEL normally only works with weapons up to 1d6x10. As a bit of an edge case, I don't know if there's anything specifically preventing a gunslinger with w.p. paired firearms from firing two 1d6x10 weapons at once that are UElinked. Nevertheless, I could see infantry in a high powered game using a combination of UEL/Long E-Clips to increase the rate of fire to 2 shots/4 actions, or maybe even 3/5, but I'd be reluctant to just stick one on the back of a jeep being able to fire every action.

Biggest post is not best post.

Let it fire every action, and limit it to a 1000 shot battery with a 400 shot back-up battery. There is good precedent for that in Rifts.


I do like that thought. It at least addresses "my issue" of rate of fire, damage and payload while keeping cost and ammo supply as a drawback.

Might even add a 1 minute penalty to change the battery.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

So let's try this

Damage 1d6x10+6 or 3d6x10+20 (2 attacks)
Range same
Payload 1000 on Large battery 400 on small backup battery
Takes 1 minute to swap out batteries. And in it's own armored case (20 mdc) and adds 2500 credits to the cost.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
RockJock
Knight
Posts: 3792
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Nashville.....ish....

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by RockJock »

I will agree to disagree on the use of this gun.

I gave you my opinion, and how I would handle it in my game, as well as why, and you take a different approach.


Enjoy!
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

RockJock wrote:I will agree to disagree on the use of this gun.

I gave you my opinion, and how I would handle it in my game, as well as why, and you take a different approach.


Enjoy!


Thank you.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

zero kay wrote:No sir that is cheating. That was throwing 300 d 6 on a table and collecting three dice that landed near each other.

If they're separated into 100 3d6 groups you get $2 and it is a wash.

Stop cheating and compare what you say your going to compare.


I'd be insulted, but I believe "If you aren't cheating you aren't trying."

There is a right way, a wrong way, the hard way and the easy way, what is right isn't always easy.

The difference is "I can deal with the consequences if caught"

Example "if you don't follow the safety guidelines, you are fired before you hit the ground"
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27955
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Hawk258 wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Most people in most of the world beyond South America (or, really, just PARTS of South America) will have a 0% chance of having heard of an ATL-7, much less be able to recognize one and know that it only holds one shot.


Still, that "one shot" advantage goes out the door once the shot is fired.


Well, kind of.
I mean, you were replying to a conversation that was specifically about people NOT knowing that there was only one shot, and the logical implications for being able to bluff people after atomizing their friend.

But sure, if the bluff fails, you're out of ammo, and that one-shot-kill advantage is gone.
And THEN you tend to have the advantage of one less enemy.
In one-on-one combat, that's a pretty decent advantage.
In one-on-two combat, that evens the odds.
The more you're outnumbered, the less good it does you... but the less good anything would do you.

Besides the fact it isn't exactly the noisy cricket. This thing is rather large and is going to attract notice. It "may prevent combat" but when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, I wouldn't want to be the guy packing it.


Depends on who else is in your party.
Most railguns are bigger and heavier, after all.

Because like i said, I would scrap the atl-7 if the GM gave it to me. Then ask "are you trying to get me killed?"


Now it sounds like you're arguing that the weapon is so powerful that it would make you a high-priority target.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27955
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Hawk258 wrote:To put the conversation back fully on the ATL-7
Here is why the ATL-7 (unmodified) is worthless.

Durability: glass cannon


Why? How many MDC does it have?

Range: a joke


IIRC, it's longer than the average energy weapon.

Damage: mediocre


20 MD better than the Boom Gun is "mediocre?"
You might be operating with a skewed perception of average.

Rate of fire: horrible


It's comparable to other man-portable anti-armor weapons, such as the CR-1 rocket launcher and such.
But no, it's not GOOD by any means.

Payload: total disaster


Yeah, that's pretty accurate.

Usage: limited especially against beings/armor resistant to energy and lasers


This would be a problem with virtually all energy weapons and all lasers.
Just like the problem with kinetic weapons is that they're no good against critters that are impervious to kinetic damage.
It doesn't sound like a serious complaint.

Effectiveness against high mdc beings/armor: not very


What do you consider "high MDC?"
Because again, the high-end EBA has maybe 100 MDC, and this gun will destroy that on an averaged shot.

Just as likely to get you into a fight as prevent one, but won't do much to end it.


How do you figure?
Do NPCs in your world just automatically pick a fight with whomever has the biggest gun?
Why?
Does that really work well for them?

An anti-tank weapon that doesn't kill tanks.


Depends on the tank, doesn't it?
There are quite a few tanks and armored vehicles with less than 125 MDC.
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27955
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Hawk258 wrote:
Mack wrote:Hawk, I’m unconvinced you read a single word I wrote.


I believe I did.

All I have been trying to say is

1: a weapon that shots 1d6x10 at 1:1 attack:actions has better odds of more strings of max damage than the ATL-7 at 1:3 at 3d6x10+20 of max damage.


Well, sure... in the sense that while the overall damage for the ATL-7 is going to be higher per attack than the 1d6x10 MD weapon, I agree that any one shot of the ATL-7 is going to be less likely to roll three 6s than the other weapon is to roll one 6.

But that seems like an inexplicable and meaningless standard to apply.
I mean, if you want a weapon that's guaranteed to do MAX DAMAGE every time, just use a Wilk's Laser Wand.

3: the potential for greater damage in the short game is in the 1d6's advantage at 1:1 than 3d6's at 1:3 due to frequency of rolls.


Not if the short game is 1 attack.
Or even 2 attacks.
Or, heck, even three attacks.

What kind of "short game" are you envisioning here?
And how often does it come up in game?
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
Mack wrote:Hawk, I’m unconvinced you read a single word I wrote.


I believe I did.

All I have been trying to say is

1: a weapon that shots 1d6x10 at 1:1 attack:actions has better odds of more strings of max damage than the ATL-7 at 1:3 at 3d6x10+20 of max damage.


Well, sure... in the sense that while the overall damage for the ATL-7 is going to be higher per attack than the 1d6x10 MD weapon, I agree that any one shot of the ATL-7 is going to be less likely to roll three 6s than the other weapon is to roll one 6.

But that seems like an inexplicable and meaningless standard to apply.
I mean, if you want a weapon that's guaranteed to do MAX DAMAGE every time, just use a Wilk's Laser Wand.

3: the potential for greater damage in the short game is in the 1d6's advantage at 1:1 than 3d6's at 1:3 due to frequency of rolls.


Not if the short game is 1 attack.
Or even 2 attacks.
Or, heck, even three attacks.

What kind of "short game" are you envisioning here?
And how often does it come up in game?



Okay for 1 attack from an ATL-7 costs 3 actions, from 1 shot to the next

An AT-1200 (for example) can attack once per action at 1d6x10

In 3 actions and 3 rolls of D20 and 3 rolls of 1d6.

Which action per action gives me the "potential" of more "max damage" even at 17% of the 1d6 rolling 6 vs 0.46% for an 18.

Add in the 5% each time I roll a 1D20 for a natural twenty increases the maximum potential damage.

Where as 3d6 and 1 shot/3 attack actions "average"
In general roll for roll.

A weapon that attacks each round at 1d6 has equal long term average of damage but a greater chance to do greater damage in the short game. (And potentially less too.) Vs a weapon that costs 3 actions for 1 attack.

In 1 game session the AT-1200 is going to roll 3 times more often. Have greater opportunities for a natural 20/double damage and have "roughly " equal average total damage without a critical.

Also the ATL-7 isn't a "combat ender"
I mean the glitterboy doesn't have a horror factor... the ATL-7 doesn't either.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27955
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Hawk258 wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:All I have been trying to say is

1: a weapon that shots 1d6x10 at 1:1 attack:actions has better odds of more strings of max damage than the ATL-7 at 1:3 at 3d6x10+20 of max damage.


Well, sure... in the sense that while the overall damage for the ATL-7 is going to be higher per attack than the 1d6x10 MD weapon, I agree that any one shot of the ATL-7 is going to be less likely to roll three 6s than the other weapon is to roll one 6.

But that seems like an inexplicable and meaningless standard to apply.
I mean, if you want a weapon that's guaranteed to do MAX DAMAGE every time, just use a Wilk's Laser Wand.

3: the potential for greater damage in the short game is in the 1d6's advantage at 1:1 than 3d6's at 1:3 due to frequency of rolls.


Not if the short game is 1 attack.
Or even 2 attacks.
Or, heck, even three attacks.

What kind of "short game" are you envisioning here?
And how often does it come up in game?



Okay for 1 attack from an ATL-7 costs 3 actions, from 1 shot to the next

An AT-1200 (for example) can attack once per action at 1d6x10

In 3 actions and 3 rolls of D20 and 3 rolls of 1d6.

Which action per action gives me the "potential" of more "max damage" even at 17% of the 1d6 rolling 6 vs 0.46% for an 18.


Who cares?
As I said, if you want a weapon that does Max Damage every single shot, get a Wilk's Laser Wand and be done with it.

Most people (rightfully) care less about "Max Damage," and more about how MUCH damage they're going to inflict overall.

Add in the 5% each time I roll a 1D20 for a natural twenty increases the maximum potential damage.


And subtract the 5% chance each time you roll for getting a natural 1. ;)

A weapon that attacks each round at 1d6 has equal long term average of damage but a greater chance to do greater damage in the short game. (And potentially less too.) Vs a weapon that costs 3 actions for 1 attack.


Again, what kind of short game are you talking?
Because your gun needs three hits to almost kinda equal one shot from the ATL-7.

How many attacks is your idea of "short game?"

(and, as you know, your odds of rolling minimum damage are just as equal as your odds of rolling maximum.)
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:All I have been trying to say is

1: a weapon that shots 1d6x10 at 1:1 attack:actions has better odds of more strings of max damage than the ATL-7 at 1:3 at 3d6x10+20 of max damage.


Well, sure... in the sense that while the overall damage for the ATL-7 is going to be higher per attack than the 1d6x10 MD weapon, I agree that any one shot of the ATL-7 is going to be less likely to roll three 6s than the other weapon is to roll one 6.

But that seems like an inexplicable and meaningless standard to apply.
I mean, if you want a weapon that's guaranteed to do MAX DAMAGE every time, just use a Wilk's Laser Wand.

3: the potential for greater damage in the short game is in the 1d6's advantage at 1:1 than 3d6's at 1:3 due to frequency of rolls.


Not if the short game is 1 attack.
Or even 2 attacks.
Or, heck, even three attacks.

What kind of "short game" are you envisioning here?
And how often does it come up in game?



Okay for 1 attack from an ATL-7 costs 3 actions, from 1 shot to the next

An AT-1200 (for example) can attack once per action at 1d6x10

In 3 actions and 3 rolls of D20 and 3 rolls of 1d6.

Which action per action gives me the "potential" of more "max damage" even at 17% of the 1d6 rolling 6 vs 0.46% for an 18.


Who cares?
As I said, if you want a weapon that does Max Damage every single shot, get a Wilk's Laser Wand and be done with it.

Most people (rightfully) care less about "Max Damage," and more about how MUCH damage they're going to inflict overall.

Add in the 5% each time I roll a 1D20 for a natural twenty increases the maximum potential damage.


And subtract the 5% chance each time you roll for getting a natural 1. ;)

A weapon that attacks each round at 1d6 has equal long term average of damage but a greater chance to do greater damage in the short game. (And potentially less too.) Vs a weapon that costs 3 actions for 1 attack.


Again, what kind of short game are you talking?
Because your gun needs three hits to almost kinda equal one shot from the ATL-7.

How many attacks is your idea of "short game?"

(and, as you know, your odds of rolling minimum damage are just as equal as your odds of rolling maximum.)


game session. Thay weapon is not a 1 shot wonder. I may do 3 times the damage in 1 attack. But 60% of the damage will be 100 md to 130 MD which is worth 1 dead character. No name npc even

I also noted it "could" do worse.

And some people like getting what they pay for. It is an "anti-tank" weapon that doesn't do squat against a tank
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
RockJock
Knight
Posts: 3792
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:01 am
Location: Nashville.....ish....

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by RockJock »

What is your book rule anti-armor weapon of choice?
RockJock, holder of the mighty Rune Rock Hammer!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

RockJock wrote:What is your book rule anti-armor weapon of choice?


Not going there.

But I will reiterate what my issue with the ATL-7

1: rate of fire: 1 shot 3 actions
2 damage: per action roughly equal to 1d6x10
3: user left vulnerable and increased odds of drawing fire getting killed trying to make the second shot.
4: effectiveness against opponents with 300+ mdc is equal to 1d6x10.

Does it break the game balance ?
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Killer Cyborg
Priest
Posts: 27955
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Killer Cyborg »

Hawk258 wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Again, what kind of short game are you talking?
Because your gun needs three hits to almost kinda equal one shot from the ATL-7.

How many attacks is your idea of "short game?"

(and, as you know, your odds of rolling minimum damage are just as equal as your odds of rolling maximum.)


game session.


How many combats do you usually do in a game session?

Thay weapon is not a 1 shot wonder. I may do 3 times the damage in 1 attack. But 60% of the damage will be 100 md to 130 MD which is worth 1 dead character. No name npc even


No idea what you're trying to say there.

I also noted it "could" do worse.

And some people like getting what they pay for. It is an "anti-tank" weapon that doesn't do squat against a tank


Again, that depends on the tank.
Which tank are YOU thinking of?
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:Again, what kind of short game are you talking?
Because your gun needs three hits to almost kinda equal one shot from the ATL-7.

How many attacks is your idea of "short game?"

(and, as you know, your odds of rolling minimum damage are just as equal as your odds of rolling maximum.)


game session.


How many combats do you usually do in a game session?

Thay weapon is not a 1 shot wonder. I may do 3 times the damage in 1 attack. But 60% of the damage will be 100 md to 130 MD which is worth 1 dead character. No name npc even


No idea what you're trying to say there.

I also noted it "could" do worse.

And some people like getting what they pay for. It is an "anti-tank" weapon that doesn't do squat against a tank


Again, that depends on the tank.
Which tank are YOU thinking of?


1: 3 to 4 on a long day.

2: it "might" take out a heavy armored individual in 1 shot.

3: one of the lightest tanks I can find is 310 MDC main body

Now I explained why I don't like the ATL-7. And why I am modifying it.

What don't you like about my idea and why it matters to you?
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Jefffar
Supreme Being
Posts: 8580
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2000 1:01 am
Comment: Being a moderator doesn't mean I speak for Palladium Books. It just makes me the lifeguard at their pool.
Location: Unreality
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Jefffar »

My issues with the ATL-7

1) Damage is too low for an anti tank weapon
2) Despite this it is still best in class by a large margin
Official Hero of the Megaverse

Dead Boy wrote:All hail Jefffar... King of the Mods

Co-Holder with Ice Dragon of the "Lando Calrissian" award for Smooth. - Novastar

Palladium Forums of the Megaverse Rules

If you need to contact Palladium Books for any reason, click here.
dreicunan
Hero
Posts: 1344
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 12:49 am

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by dreicunan »

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Hawk258 wrote:Thay weapon is not a 1 shot wonder. I may do 3 times the damage in 1 attack. But 60% of the damage will be 100 md to 130 MD which is worth 1 dead character. No name npc even


No idea what you're trying to say there.

He is continuing to perpetuate his mistaken belief that rolling 1d6 three times somehow gives him different odds of getting better damage than 3d6 one time does. That somehow the ATL-7 is "stuck" at being average. Due to rolling 3d6x10+20 all at once while a 1d6x10 weapon is not due to rolling the dice over the course of three actions. He's massively misapplied the gambler's fallacy to the situation.

Math is hard. :?
Axelmania wrote:You of course, being the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not.
Declared the ultimate authority on what is an error and what is not by Axelmania on 5.11.19.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Back to the last question I asked.

Does it unbalance the game?
What don't "you like" about my idea?
And why does it effect you?
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
Hawk258
Adventurer
Posts: 656
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 3:46 pm
Comment: Chuckie Sullivan "Applesauce B!%@#"

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Hawk258 »

Jefffar wrote:My issues with the ATL-7

1) Damage is too low for an anti tank weapon
2) Despite this it is still best in class by a large margin


1) I agree
2) as far as I can tell it's the only one in its class.
It's not a GB's boom gun (3d6x10 every round)
I say it is closer to 1d6x10 class based on damage/time.

In fact it's being treated as a "missile launcher/rocket launcher". Which there are missile launchers with better payloads.

The ATL-7 negates the advantage of being energy based. This weapon requires higher volumes of e-clips, and costs more actions per damage output. Each action after 3 lowers the damage output average.

At 3 actions the average is 41.66
At 4 that drops to 31.25

My "modification" still limits actions per shot

And using the suggestion of batteries for larger payloads still has the "cost and recharge/reload" drawbacks.

I do not believe my idea breaks the basic fundamental idea of the weapon. Nor unbalanced game play.

I just "modified it" so that there is an ability to use it more frequently, and allow it to provide the kill shot on a heavily armored target "sooner". And eliminate the need to carry multiple weapons systems when 1 weapon can do the same job as 2

With a called/aimed shot the average stays 41.66 and 3 actions.
When I post an idea, game balance is my only concern. For rules see rule zero and for canon look at RUE PAGE 372. Only 2 questions need consideration is it fun? Is it balanced?

Gamblers fallacy:(Example): Coin flips are the most common example of the gambler's fallacy. For instance, in a game of heads or tails, many people will bet on tails if there have been several heads in a row.
User avatar
Mack
Supreme Being
Posts: 6297
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:01 am
Comment: This space for rent.
Location: Searching the Dinosaur Swamp
Contact:

Re: ATL-7 modified

Unread post by Mack »

Hawk258 wrote:And why does it effect you?


After arguing for three pages about your idea, it's disingenuous to say "why does it effect you?" when you clearly care a great deal about the opinion of those who will never share a gaming table with you.

Allow me to turn your question around: Why do you care what anyone here thinks?
Some gave all.
Love your neighbor.
Know the facts. Know your opinion. Know the difference.
Locked

Return to “Rifts®”