The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Why is "old" obsolete?
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Why is "old" obsolete?
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mamatried
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1664
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:02 pm    Post subject: Why is "old" obsolete? Reply with quote

I find this to make no sense


The ONLY differnence in the clone armor vs the stromtrooper armor is the
MFTS bonus, and this makes sense with higher tech.
this is accounted for in the stats.

We have the 100 yr old brownin M2 Browning .50 cal. still in use all over the
world, but is is 100 years old this needs be "useless" when sued even on an modern unrmoroed, becuse reduce the dice output of the shot......silly!

The B-52 is far from obsolete, and I will argue neither is the c-13o series or the F-14....all being 50+ year old systems in daily use.

I feel that the rules do not see this when they infer a X-D penalty based on era.

lets compare. Plastiod is imo the same, so the armor plates is "normal"
the clone II armor has a MFTS at +2, vs the stromtrooper's more modernized 1D-2D (dep on model) and this is then acounted for the tech gap, now donning the +2MFTS armor and then reducing this by 1D simply becuse last week a new "era" was in place meaks absolutely no sense.

We know the YT-1300 is made well before the clone wars......so we need to redu ce the falcon by 1D-2D on everthing.......maybe it is not actually capable of the 12 parsec run, after all it is at a penalty for age.

My argument is that there should be no such tech gap penalty becuse the stats incude these.

lets look to Old republic ships, they are by stats alone signifacntly slower, have much more primitive sensors, and weapon CONTROL systems etc, so wahy ADD to this?


I can say with 100% certainty that if I shoot a light armoed Hummer with a .50 calibre with standard AP rounds form my WW2 Sherman, I will do EXACT the same level of damage to the hummer as If I used the .50 on my M1 Abrams....

So why is this gapt there at all, an should this not be ignored completely?

I will argue the 2000 yr old blaster dealing 3D damage deals this damage still IF the gun was allowred to be transported in time to the present and I take this balster an shoot a guy, I am 100% sure the damage is the same on the gun....but the "rules" state otherwise WHY?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 13580
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The only time i as a dm impose a penalty because of something being old, is if its CENTURIES old. Just being 100 years or less, old, does not make anything obsolete.. 200+, just might though.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1664
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeah is sort of my P.O.V. I can see even somone with the tech skills, a planet government operate something like a arc-70, and yes I would say using the clone wars stats would still make it for all others than the empire still a threat.

and yeah, some 100-200 years on the limit is what I feel before is begins to actually suffer.

I do however still think that these would have unalterd stats, but it would make sense that the stats were lower.

I can picture a weapon like a protoaber, the "bakcpack, hose and handle" lightsaber have maybe 3D even 4D damage, but far less "cutting power" allowing many more materilas to be resistant, this to refect advance in armor techology and this of course we see in armor and blasters, I would maybe rate the blasters of the old republic to be unlatered in damage vs unarmoed, but they may actually have zero effects on some armors, due to sipersing.

I can see the (awesome looking by the way) old republic trooper armor as long as plastiod, have unalted and even effective against modern weapons armor, but much higher weight, less mobility and internal systems etc, no MFTS, but since it makes sense osne +1 to +2 opetical hlemet enhancements, but at the cost of mobility and of coirse mybe durabilty in combat, having a limited number of "modern" shots taken before simply destroyd and "unrepairbable"

I can also see "designs" being reused, like the little corvette and the "tie-looking one" from the old republic being basically reused designs in appearnce, but made with modern materials tech and given then maybe the "scale" update stats simply to know what is condered par for the era.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 9499
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Why is "old" obsolete? Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
Why is "old" obsolete?

So they can sell more toys and lego sets! Cool

Mamatried wrote:
We have the 100 yr old brownin M2 Browning .50 cal. still in use all over the
world, but is is 100 years old this needs be "useless" when sued even on an modern unrmoroed, becuse reduce the dice output of the shot......silly!

The B-52 is far from obsolete, and I will argue neither is the c-13o series or the F-14....all being 50+ year old systems in daily use.
...
I can say with 100% certainty that if I shoot a light armoed Hummer with a .50 calibre with standard AP rounds form my WW2 Sherman, I will do EXACT the same level of damage to the hummer as If I used the .50 on my M1 Abrams....

This is all irrelevant. You can't compare the advances of firearms and aircraft on one century on Earth to thousands of years of fictional advances of in sci-fi armor, starships and blasters. It's two totally different scales.

Mamatried wrote:
I find this to make no sense

The ONLY differnence in the clone armor vs the stromtrooper armor is the
MFTS bonus, and this makes sense with higher tech.
this is accounted for in the stats.
...
I feel that the rules do not see this when they infer a X-D penalty based on era.

lets compare. Plastiod is imo the same, so the armor plates is "normal"
the clone II armor has a MFTS at +2, vs the stromtrooper's more modernized 1D-2D (dep on model) and this is then acounted for the tech gap, now donning the +2MFTS armor and then reducing this by 1D simply becuse last week a new "era" was in place meaks absolutely no sense.

Clone armor has no official stats because it did not exist until after 1998. Are you ranting about fan stats?

Mamatried wrote:
IWe know the YT-1300 is made well before the clone wars......so we need to redu ce the falcon by 1D-2D on everthing.......maybe it is not actually capable of the 12 parsec run, after all it is at a penalty for age.

My argument is that there should be no such tech gap penalty becuse the stats incude these.

lets look to Old republic ships, they are by stats alone signifacntly slower, have much more primitive sensors, and weapon CONTROL systems etc, so wahy ADD to this?
...
So why is this gapt there at all, an should this not be ignored completely?

I will argue the 2000 yr old blaster dealing 3D damage deals this damage still IF the gun was allowred to be transported in time to the present and I take this balster an shoot a guy, I am 100% sure the damage is the same on the gun....but the "rules" state otherwise WHY?

What tech gap penalty? What "rules" are you talking about? I looked through the TotJC book and I saw no such rule. There are differences baked into the stats about there being only two sensor modes and particle shields having to be angled like energy shields. If this is some fan rule, then what is the source and why does a mere fan rule bother you so much that you need a formal argument against it? It would help if this was more clear what it is you are actually talking about. Thanks.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
pakman
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 150

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What???
Need more context - is this a question or a rant?
I am confused. But I am also tired....(I am old too...but wait).

Ignoring false perceptions (some people who think old and obsolete are the same thing)....

Practical Terminology
Old - typically implies something maybe has not been properly maintained or has suffered wear and tear due to long term use, or in some cases, degradation over time due to environmental factors - which may not have been or might not be possible to repair or treat.

Obsolete - refers to something which has had newer models with more advanced capability replace them.

Note - you don't have to be old to also be obsolete (new model with faster specs comes out next year....etc.).

Taking it back to SWD6

We have to be VERY careful about translating any real world scales of use or advancement to star wars. I mean - much tech is VERY new in our world compared to star wars - where they have had space travel for over 20,000 years. Many technologies would have become potentially either stagnant, or reached their optimal limits (we have not really improved on the wheel in a while.....maybe how we use and make them....) perhaps thousands of years ago.

In my perspective - an "old" anything in star wars is perhaps centuries old, or more.

Now, I am sure many writers of content have missed this in various media over the life of the star wars franchise (thinking there would be big advances in a period of 10 or 50 years in a republic thousands of years old).

Now, there can always be innovation - cleverness in design, or new ways (or maybe centuries old and lost) of building ships, or whatever. Better is not always the same as "advanced".

Now regarding the clone armor ref - more context is needed.
If the OP is looking for a reason clone armor was phased out over trooper armor - could be anything from aesthetics, to different manufacturers to the plain old wanting a new style to represent a new regime.
(this happens in business too - believe it or not - a new CIO wanting to change systems to just put their mark on things).
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1664
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes I am taking "fan" based, as in what is the scoursebooks we have avilable here, 2ed to reup.

I am in particularly referring to the "OLD REPUBLIC" scoursebook, or the one from the MMO thing, and yes it is not official, but I would say unless official rule here, we are in the mix of both official and unfoofical rules her on the pit and forum.

that being said there is a tech teir list in that book, where it aims to refect the differences in tech by a table showing the +/- over the varuous eras

GG-18 old republic Pg 6 Era modifiers

Here is the example given in the book with to me makes no sense at all in any way shape or form.

in this case we have a arc 170 fither redcing DIE to weapons becuse the NORMAL freighter is made 10 years later...........nonsese.



"For example, Eran is flying a Rebellion era YT-850 freighter (0D) against a vintage Clone
War era ARC-170 fighter (-1D). If the ARC-170 were to fire its laser cannon at the YT-850, the
older ship would subtract 1D from its laser's damage roll against the YT's newer hull, to
represent the relative difference in armor strength. Consequently, were the YT to return
fire, the ARC-170 would be at a -1D penalty for its Hull strength roll against the newer ship's
lasers. However, neither ship would be at a penalty when rolling their piloting skill and
adding their ship's Maneuver dice, as the rolls are not directly against one another"


This is the tech gap I am taking about, why have it it makes no sesne I can not see it apply to anything, other than may a individual table where people are all for limiting stuff for the sake of limits, but while I like and accpts most limits, I do not go about making some where they are not or are not needed....like in this case.

I can not see any reason why I can not pick any starship from the old republic era book, have this been maintained, still produced in one of the trillions of star systems that my not all have the exact same levels of tech.

And yes we can compare earth tech to this......I see no problem comparting a spitfire fighter vs a airliner as any different than an arc-170 vs the unarmed yt-850.
Now the arument presented in the scoursebook is that the modern airliner is much better built with better and more durable materials and will thus withstand the cannon blasts from the spitfire better than a ww2 era DC3....which I say NO, that is not at all the case it is maybe easier today to shoot down a airliner with a ww2 fighter than it was back then, technology not being a factor either way.

it is also relevant to compare 100yr and 50 year old weaponsystems in use on earth with weapon systems in use in star wars.....

I have an army equipped much like the 1990s US Army, I am not considered technologaclly obsololete, I am at par with 95% of the world.

The clone balster rifle according to the above will have less power than a pistol, and to be fair that is nonsesical.

in fact outside "good" and "less godd" stats, I don't see the need to have any such tech treaholds in any way, as we do not see this in star wars, where ALL tech from muscets and muzzle loaded rifles to faster than lightspeed and anti gravety tech.........so why have a Dice gap here I do not see it, my Broadsword form the 1300s (original actually and cost me a penny) perfoms IDENTICALLY to my buddy broadsword that he bought a few years ago, a very modern sword made with a very modern steel, but both did the same job on the dummies.......

so why have a tech "level" at all in stead of just statting out things accordingly. Like a 4D+1 on a rifle that will with tech development have better damage naturally and 20 down the line it has 5D+2. the tech level progress is now calculated inot the "higher" stats......

and we see that most if not all the starships have far slower hyperdrives, have far slower engines and sensor packs.....I will argue that it is the electronics and the gunnery more than the armor plating and hull/frame/chassis that reperesents technological developments, and with aship with no focused serach setting or listing to the sensors, would to me indicate that this is old, maybe obsolete comapted to newer systems with focused search....

so why......why have this opening the book when imo the entire tech thing is utter nonsense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pakman
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 150

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Short answer

Then ignore it if it does not make sense.
That is part of a GM's job, to determine when there is a need to change something - especially if it does not make sense.

done.

Side note:
My comment about not being able to compare was about time scaling.

Many times authors make the potentially inaccurate leap of "tech changes rapidly in our world" to that of star wars.

In our world, 10 years or 50 can show incredible leaps of tech - because we are new at it. In star wars - turn that into maybe every few thousand years.

Or to put much more simply; 50 years in our world is like 10,000 in star wars.

to each their own.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 13580
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pakman wrote:


Obsolete - refers to something which has had newer models with more advanced capability replace them.

Note - you don't have to be old to also be obsolete (new model with faster specs comes out next year....etc.).


Exactly just look at our modern computing world. There's often times, where something "new comes out' JUST AS THE older one starts being seen as main stream, so technically its now obsolete, but STILL QUITE usable..

Quote:
Taking it back to SWD6

We have to be VERY careful about translating any real world scales of use or advancement to star wars. I mean - much tech is VERY new in our world compared to star wars - where they have had space travel for over 20,000 years. Many technologies would have become potentially either stagnant, or reached their optimal limits (we have not really improved on the wheel in a while.....maybe how we use and make them....) perhaps thousands of years ago.


AND as we've seen irl, Necessity is the mother of invention. SO If the republic was stagnant for centuries due to NO wars or other forms of necessity, that could very well explain why a lot of tech DID stagnate/not get revised..

Quote:

Now regarding the clone armor ref - more context is needed.
If the OP is looking for a reason clone armor was phased out over trooper armor - could be anything from aesthetics, to different manufacturers to the plain old wanting a new style to represent a new regime.
(this happens in business too - believe it or not - a new CIO wanting to change systems to just put their mark on things).

I've seen the same in the miiltary.. A new commander comes into the base, and changes things, JUST BECAUSE..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KageRyu
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1177
Location: Lost in the cracks

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@MamaTried, I am vaguely familiar with the sort of chart you are thinking of - though I can not recall if I ran into it in that Fan Made Galaxy Guide or elsewhere. When I saw it I thought it was a bad idea for the exact reasons others have already stated in this thread. I want to be careful how I say what I mean to say, as it is not my intent to disparage the work of fans who try to make content. However, I feel when dealing with any fan made stats you have to take them with a grain of salt and review and if necessary change them to bring them more in standard for the exact reason of issues such as this Technology Penalty.

To elaborate:
In a non-SW D6 space game, rather than an age or era modifier I would develop and use a set of Technology Levels (other space games use this idea) where the Tech Level of a society is represented as a Die Code and reflects roughly how advanced that Society is )I had already developed and written up such rules and there is much more to it than what I am presenting here). In the event of a clash of cultures using advanced weapons, I might allow the difference in Die code of Tech Level to be applied as a modifier to things like weapons or damage resistance - to a point (obviously a spear is a spear and no such modifier should be applied).

In a setting like Star Wars however, where the galaxy has been mostly explored, and there is a galaxy spanning community where the worlds involved have had space travel for thousands or tens of thousands of years, the Tech Level would be relatively uniform. Sure you will have some worlds with a unique set of items, or perhaps Duros Hyperdrives are smaller and more compact than Corellian... but the SW source materials and the existing rules already account for this very well. In such a setting, where Blaster have been around for hundreds of years or thousands of years, the span of time between eras would represent such a negligible impact on the technology level that it should be accounted for in the written stats, no by some arbitrary chart or rule. What would really make Clone Trooper armor obsolete would be better reflected by being unable to find materials to repair it, or replace components, or modifier to work with newer tools, weapons, and devices because it is no longer manufactured or used in any widespread capacity. Sure that ARC Trooper Gattling Blaster is great, the damage does not get changed, and so why doesn't everyone use them? Because Power Packs are no longer made, and the charging systems are not longer compatible with new systems. This would be far more realistic I feel.
As to Spacecraft...I have seen some Clone Wars Era writeups and the stats are just bloated. Often this is because (and I have made this error too) a fan of a particular craft, vehicle, character, creature, wants it to be awesome. I often just dump the stats in cases like this and rewrite them to bring them into line. Given that the Arc-170 is the predecessor to the X-Wing now, it's stats should be below it. Most D6 stats I see for it give it the same Hull Code, the Same Shield code... the weapons are weaker, but it has a built in nave computer - so aside from the X Wing only needing One Crew, and having better maneuverability and main weapons, the Arc-170 seems too good IMHO. Rather than "Fix" this by applying some damage penalty to weapons and Hull, I would just Lower it's hull to 3D+1 or 3D+2...the weapons seem fine. Similarly, I remember a heated discussion breaking out over Republic Hover Tanks where the Stat Writer on the website in question gave them the same scale and body die code as the Lars family speeder, and tried to justify this with "they're old" (Speeder Scale 2D+2 Hull Die Code for a tank).

I would encourage that when you run into stats or rules that seem off in either direction to make adjustments.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
KageRyu
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 1177
Location: Lost in the cracks

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2022 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Addendum-
I do clearly remember reading in one of the WEG books on this exact topic of new vs old. It discussed Game Masters introducing or representing advancements or improvements with small changes to stats. I know it was a Star Wars book, but at this time I can not say if it was one of the core rules editions, the rules companion, or one of the Game Master supplements. I am fairly certain it was at least 2E as it discussed one of the things to represent a new Blaster Model would be for the GM to say it had improved Power Packs and thus More shots (1E was very vague with regard to ammunition as I recall, stating that the players and villains could merrily blast away, likely only running out of ammo on a very poor roll). As I reall the suggestions were to do things like ad 10-25% to ammo capacity, add one or two pips to damage for weapons, add one or two pips to resistance for armor, having energy packs charge faster, reduce weight, etc...
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0