Eclipse Phase Review.

[virgil]

People shouldn't be “knowing” facts, they should be “finding” and “contextualizing” facts.

I'm trying to imagine actually incorporating that properly into a game. A lack of 'knowledge: arcana' type skills, and instead something similar to a hybrid of Hacking, Gather Info, and Knowledge (Social Circle), where you learn to data mine things of interest to a particular demographic? A variety of free floating skill points that you can switch in and out like books on a shelf, where comprehension speed & retention values show the difficulty/ease of both uploading and removing data (besides actual volume limits)? Both? Something else?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Frank, I still want to know why if people can create electronic consciousness there is still bullshit like nanites and personal robot bodies.

[IGTN]

Knowledge (Physics) or (Math) or (History) still has a place under a contextual system; not so much for you to be able to recall facts about physics; anyone should be able to recall any physical constant or equation that they want, but instead to give you the background that you need to understand what they mean and apply them.

Your instant knowledge should be more like an encyclopedia entry than a lesson. The encyclopedia entry tells you what, the lesson tells you how to apply it. Given a second to do the numerical integration, you can have a solution to the Schoedinger Equation for any element in any state you please, but being able to predict reactions from that is knowledge (of course, you could just have a list of chemical reactions and look that up). It gives you everything there is to know about something; you have to know how to sort through it to find what you need to know, and know where to start to understand it, neither of which is labelled for you.

[Taleran]

obviously anyone with a different opinion must be a fanboy.....

Bro, you have three posts, your first one is talking shit about a review using standard fanboy logic and your most recent is the classic "Break up posts and fail to make points rebuttal-fu" technique.

You're not going to win this. You're not going to change our minds unless you respond in a detached, rational manner and not go for knee-jerk responses and ad hominems. A word of advice before Roy sniffs out the fresh meat: cut your losses here and lurk more.

Also, he seems to think you're threatening him with a mod. I'm no mod, and people don't get modded here unless they do something over the top even by over the top standards such as post pictures of pedo dismemberment pron.

I do however smite imbeciles for being imbeciles.

On that note...

1: Learn to use the shift key. no one wants to read lowercase runon drivel that takes forever to get to the point, if it even has one

They might want to read it if you can demonstrate a six year old's ability to write in complete sentences. Of course your ideas are still bad and you should feel bad, so they'll only be responding with some variation of fuck off but regardless, that's an improvement.

2: Learn what the Paizil Fallacy is. Then don't invoke it. The Paizil Fallacy is when you attempt to dismiss facts as opinions (and therefore meaningless on the Internet) because you do not like them or do not agree with them. So named because the Paizo forums are the most notorious for this. It also comes up when you attempt to hide behind opinions as unattackable, though that would be more of the EN Fallacy. Which isn't as catchy.

3: Learn what the Stormwind Fallacy is. Then don't invoke that either. The Stormwind Fallacy is where you assume there is an inverse correlation between optimization and roleplay, therefore roleplaying means gimping yourself, and if your character is not a figurative or literal cripple you're a dirty powergamer. Not to mention that if you were really a roleplayer, then asking yourself 'What would my character do?' would quickly return something to the effect of 'Do not undertake obviously suicidal courses of action, use a goddamned ranged weapon in a futuristic world because they have even more of an edge over melee weapons than they do in present day Earth'.

Depending on your responses to this, you will either be redeemed or smited into oblivion (hint: Demonstrate some intelligence and sapience).

1. i choose not to use the shift key. Its not broken or anything besides with everyone and their mother jumping right on that little aspect of my posts I had to keep it up. Kinda funny actually such a knee-jerk reaction from everyone

2. I don't recall using this alot

3. This is outright BULLSHIT and not even a fallacy because a fallacy implies that that is ALWAYS THE CASE, and there a multitude of reasons and situtation when melee combat can be used just as effectivly if not more so than range combat

-as stated previously inside pressurized craft firing large weaponry would be a bad idea
-when wanting to be silent
-with the multitude of ways you can stealth yourself or interupt other people's vision getting in close is not a problem
-might be a problem of availability
-lack of ammo
-price
-could be locked up
-or you miss with your ranged weapon and someone gets in close, then what?

and those are only reasons off the top of my head

You guys seem to keep finding 'holes' in the rules without using the setting and the world as reasons for the rules being like they are


And all this talk I am getting from everyone sounds like everyone wants to play carbon copied characters of one another and no skill or weapon can do more or less damage because that wouldn't be fair leading to everyone being the goddamn same, and if that is the way you feel then I suggest you look into World of Warcraft because they seem to be on that course, homogenization in games where you can creat characters is a BAD thing.

Other points of note

-to the guy who said DERP what if you add LASER GUNS to a fantasy setting, other than being an obvious troll attempt, logic and reasoning come into play in a setting about Science Fiction and the inifite of space everything presented in this book is both possible and probable and since it happens in the future there is nothing wrong with it

(and actually you could be a Fantasy VR simulation in EP and a hacker could cheat to get the game to give him a laser gun so yeah its possible)


I hope I didn't miss anything important

[Grek]

... there a multitude of reasons and situtation when melee combat can be used just as effectivly if not more so than range combat...

The issue with this game is not that melee combat shouldn't be in the game/setting or that melee combat isn't cool. It is quite cool and should be in the setting. The problem is that the rules, as they are written now, do not match the design goal of having meele attacks happen, be cool and work as well as guns do.

If meele attacks are supposed to be as good and as viable for a character option as ranged attacks(which I am assuming is the case for Eclipse Phase), then meele attacks should not be given signifigant penalties compared to ranged attacks and stuff like sneaking up on people and rapidly closing into meele range should also be happening in the game.

If meele attacks are not supposed to be as good as ranged attacks, and it isn't considered acceptable in-setting for a character to use meele attacks over ranged attacks given the choice, then meele attacks should be an inferior option mechanically as well as setting-wise. They should also be clearly labeled as inferior with a section title like "Meele Attacks: Bringing a knife to a gun-fight." and the section on them should be perfectly clear about the fact that, unless you have a very good reason for not wanting to fire a gun, such as lack of ammo, being inside a pressurized ship, etc. as your post described, you shouldn't be using meele weapons.

Currently, Eclipse Phase has the setting goals of option 1, where meele attacks are cool and should happen, but the rules support of option 2 where they are supposed to be an inferior option. That shouldn't be the case, so either meele attacks need to be made better so that the work in a way consistant with the setting(ie. they are just as good as using a gun, possibly better given favorable circumstances), or the setting needs to reflect that fact that meele attacks aren't actually any good.

[Parthenon]

Heh. Funny.

Noone even mentioned the fact that you seem unable to use punctuation and sentences correctly until you had already posted 12 times. And in those 12 times you have about 5 actual sentences, with capital letters and punctuation.

So, if you are suddenly stating that you were trolling in reaction to people complaining about your lack of English ability then you are either lying, started off a troll or a complete fucking moron. And since you don't seem able to use English properly and instead have run-on sentences, an inability to explain your points and general incomprehensibility then I will have to go with complete fucking moron.

---

Looking at it more and at the blurb on the game website it really reminds me of Global Frequency (the Warren Ellis comic) with the transhumanism turned up to 12 and spaceships.

Except that Global Frequency could more easily play around with ideas such as an alien meme that infects humans and requires removing cities from existence to counteract the spread. Or looking at how people who are no longer restricted to normal human reactions can be dealt with. Or some of the results from human experimentation.

That could actually be a really cool game. You have various random happenings such as a small beachhead for an alien invasion, molemen from the centre of the world or a Nazi magic weapon unsurfaced and there is a worldwide secret organisation to deal with these. The players very quickly make semi-random characters for each problem that they try and solve the problem with.
So, if there is an army experiment supersoldier about to escape a secret facility under New York you roll up an ex-army cyborg, a demolitions/gun expert and an uplifted octopus hacker that uses lots of drones to try and kill it before it escapes.
The next session you could create a psychologist and linguist capable of cracking Linear B and has an implant linking them to the internet, a psychic and small scale telekinetic and a wizard to try and solve a series of murders by an army of demons.
It would be very episodic stories with very few recurring characters, and can vary easily between different levels of powers.

[Taleran]

... there a multitude of reasons and situtation when melee combat can be used just as effectivly if not more so than range combat...

The issue with this game is not that melee combat shouldn't be in the game/setting or that melee combat isn't cool. It is quite cool and should be in the setting. The problem is that the rules, as they are written now, do not match the design goal of having meele attacks happen, be cool and work as well as guns do.

If meele attacks are supposed to be as good and as viable for a character option as ranged attacks(which I am assuming is the case for Eclipse Phase), then meele attacks should not be given signifigant penalties compared to ranged attacks and stuff like sneaking up on people and rapidly closing into meele range should also be happening in the game.

If meele attacks are not supposed to be as good as ranged attacks, and it isn't considered acceptable in-setting for a character to use meele attacks over ranged attacks given the choice, then meele attacks should be an inferior option mechanically as well as setting-wise. They should also be clearly labeled as inferior with a section title like "Meele Attacks: Bringing a knife to a gun-fight." and the section on them should be perfectly clear about the fact that, unless you have a very good reason for not wanting to fire a gun, such as lack of ammo, being inside a pressurized ship, etc. as your post described, you shouldn't be using meele weapons.

Currently, Eclipse Phase has the setting goals of option 1, where meele attacks are cool and should happen, but the rules support of option 2 where they are supposed to be an inferior option. That shouldn't be the case, so either meele attacks need to be made better so that the work in a way consistant with the setting(ie. they are just as good as using a gun, possibly better given favorable circumstances), or the setting needs to reflect that fact that meele attacks aren't actually any good.

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

for example

-cammo cloak
-speed enhancing drugs
-making good use of cover
and
a Melee Weapon

the rules don't limit the lack of your want to use Melee combat your own limitations in not seeing the possiblities do that

Heh. Funny.

Noone even mentioned the fact that you seem unable to use punctuation and sentences correctly until you had already posted 12 times. And in those 12 times you have about 5 actual sentences, with capital letters and punctuation.

So, if you are suddenly stating that you were trolling in reaction to people complaining about your lack of English ability then you are either lying, started off a troll or a complete fucking moron. And since you don't seem able to use English properly and instead have run-on sentences, an inability to explain your points and general incomprehensibility then I will have to go with complete fucking moron.

you know I'd respond to this if it was made so funny and ironic by "Heh. Funny."

[Heath Robinson]

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

for example

-cammo cloak
-speed enhancing drugs
-making good use of cover
and
a Melee Weapon

1. Guns are better than knives (try replacing that melee weapon in your suggestion with a ranged weapon - they're significantly more effective)
2. Your character expects to enter combat
3. Your character wants to win any combat they enter
4. Your character is aware of the first point
5. Ranged weapons are available

You must refute one of the above propositions to rationally choose a melee weapon. Good arguments are:

1. The rules mean guns often do not deal damage due to armour, damage, or accuracy problems (real world individual combat worked this way until the invention of rifling)
2. My character is an academic that never fought, even in school
3. My character is suicidal
4. My character is delusional
5. The game does not let me take ranged weapons, but melee weapons are available

The following are bad arguments:

• There are abilities that synergise with any kind of weapon choice
• Players should make their character unaware of the rules
• GMs should violate credulity to make melee weapons equal in usefulness (i.e. your superspeed ninja are legal/available, but guns aren't)

A fun exercise is to figure out why each of these is a bad argument.

the rules don't limit the lack of your want to use Melee combat your own limitations in not seeing the possiblities do that

What is this I don't even....

[violence in the media]

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Take your ROLE vs. ROLL bullshit elsewhere. Knowing how the rules behave influences how people want to make characters. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

[Taleran]

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

for example

-cammo cloak
-speed enhancing drugs
-making good use of cover
and
a Melee Weapon

1. Guns are better than knives (try replacing that melee weapon in your suggestion with a ranged weapon - they're significantly more effective)
2. Your character expects to enter combat
3. Your character wants to win any combat they enter
4. Your character is aware of the first point
5. Ranged weapons are available

You must refute one of the above propositions to rationally choose a melee weapon. Good arguments are:

1. The rules mean guns often do not deal damage due to armour, damage, or accuracy problems (real world individual combat worked this way until the invention of rifling)
2. My character is an academic that never fought, even in school
3. My character is suicidal
4. My character is delusional
5. The game does not let me take ranged weapons, but melee weapons are available

The following are bad arguments:

• There are abilities that synergise with any kind of weapon choice
• Players should make their character unaware of the rules
• GMs should violate credulity to make melee weapons equal in usefulness (i.e. your superspeed ninja are legal/available, but guns aren't)

A fun exercise is to figure out why each of these is a bad argument.

the rules don't limit the lack of your want to use Melee combat your own limitations in not seeing the possiblities do that

What is this I don't even....

the last comment was directed at the fact that people look at the weapons themselves and make up their minds that one must be better than the other without taking into account other options that could be used to make the weapons more effective.

1. Guns are better than knives (try replacing that melee weapon in your suggestion with a ranged weapon - they're significantly more effective)
2. Your character expects to enter combat
3. Your character wants to win any combat they enter
4. Your character is aware of the first point
5. Ranged weapons are available

*actually the Garrote Wire is better than both the gun and the knife
*you can enter combat with any weapon in the book
*you can win combat with melee weapons (just because guns do a bit more damage doesn't mean you automatically won't win with the knife)


and yeah you are forgetting the most important option the person wants their character to use a sword

[violence in the media]

and yeah you are forgetting the most important option the person wants their character to use a sword

If that's the case, then why don't you want the rules to make using a sword equally viable to using a gun? You're basically saying that anything a player wants to do should trump all rule mechanics, logic, or common sense.

What if this sword-using player isn't savvy enough to make use of all the options you presented to make his choice viable?

What if he does, and you discover that using those options doesn't do enough to make melee viable, and he still gets his face shot off?

[Psychic Robot]

My troll sense is tingling.

[Taleran]

and yeah you are forgetting the most important option the person wants their character to use a sword

If that's the case, then why don't you want the rules to make using a sword equally viable to using a gun? You're basically saying that anything a player wants to do should trump all rule mechanics, logic, or common sense.

What if this sword-using player isn't savvy enough to make use of all the options you presented to make his choice viable?

What if he does, and you discover that using those options doesn't do enough to make melee viable, and he still gets his face shot off?

the rules for swords and guns are equally viable guns just do more damage

you know like they usually do

well I can't answer the 2nd two because there are many things that player could do that that point

[Cielingcat]

the rules for swords and guns are equally viable guns just do more damage

wat

[Taleran]

wat

I'm not sure I understand what problems you are having with what I posted

[Cielingcat]

You said the rules were equally viable, except that guns were better.

This is a literal contradiction and I don't know how you can say it with a straight face.

[Taleran]

You said the rules were equally viable, except that guns were better.

This is a literal contradiction and I don't know how you can say it with a straight face.

why is more damage automatically better? Better is a very broad word, and yeah the rules work for both melee and ranged combat.

viable - capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately, which the rules do.

[violence in the media]

You said the rules were equally viable, except that guns were better.

This is a literal contradiction and I don't know how you can say it with a straight face.

why is more damage automatically better? Better is a very broad word, and yeah the rules work for both melee and ranged combat.

viable - capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately, which the rules do.

When is it not? Can you accidentally shoot through people in this game? Also, if a man with a sword almost always loses to a man with a gun, I don't much care that a sword is technically capable of killing people.

[Heath Robinson]

1. actually the Garrote Wire is better than both the gun and the knife
2. you can enter combat with any weapon in the book
3. you can win combat with melee weapons (just because guns do a bit more damage doesn't mean you automatically won't win with the knife)

and yeah you are forgetting the most important option the person wants their character to use a sword

1. Proof. All the militaries in the world use ranged weapons - and my country (the British Empire it was called back then) regularly destroyed numerically superior opponents because our troops had significantly more ranged weapons than their opponents
2. This is an assumption that feeds into later inductions to come to the conclusion that your character would choose a firearm. I'll lay out the entire list of inductions below for you to ponder. Asserting that you can enter combat with a knife does not refute this.
3. You can win combat with a toothpick, but I'll choose the knife over that. And the gun over the knife. Your likelihood of winning is affected by your choice of weapon.

---

Induction chain:

1. Ranged weapons are better than melee weapons
2. Your character expects to enter combat
3. Your character wants to win any combat they enter
4. Your character is aware of the first point
5. Ranged weapons are available
6. From 2, 3: Your character makes choices on the basis of what will maximise their chances of victory
7. From 4, 6: Your character will prefer to choose a ranged weapon over a melee weapon
8. From 5, 7: Your character will choose a ranged weapon

---

"the person wants their character to use a sword"

Then they're playing the wrong game. They should go play D&D or Exalted where their character can use a sword and still be rational. If they choose a sword where it is not rational then their conceptions about what the game should be about are markedly different from what the game designers thought, and they will not enjoy playing. This isn't an asserion I'm making, this is the way it is. No amount of arguing on the internet is going to change that.

You seem to be of the impression that we are saying "YOU CANNOT USE SWORDS NOOB". We're not. We're telling you that the game makes using a sword suck.

[Grek]

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage

Mostly that whole "ranged weapons halve defense, meele weapons don't deal. That's a pretty big

and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

No, you still use the meele weapon if it is part of the character concept. The fact that meele weapons are mechanically inferior isn't the issue so much as the fact that the mechanic of "Meele attacks are inferior to guns in an actual life-or-death fight" does not go well with the setting idea of "There are people who run around gunfights with a katana and this isn't considered weird or suicidial."

The mechanics are there to answer the question "Does the cop manage to hit the robber?" for your game of Cops and Robbers. If it don't provide reasonable results, than the mechanics are wrong and need to be altered.

[Cielingcat]

You said equally viable. You then said they were not equal in an area that specifically determines weapon viability.

Had you said that swords had some other advantage that could put them on par with guns, you might have a point. But guns are already better than swords-because guns have range "Fucking long" and swords have range "3 feet." Now you're adding "guns do more damage."

I mean yes, maybe guns do only a little less damage, and you can't really notice it. But from what I read in the review, guns have a million other advantages over swords.

I really fucking hate quoting George Orwell, but the Animal Farm quote "all animals are equal, some are just more equal than others" fits this perfectly.


But you know what? I don't really care. I don't think swords should be equal to guns in a sci-fi setting-so if they're not, that strengthens the game for me. But the game should make it very clear that swords are not a supported weapon type, and are included mostly for you to have because they look cool. But you, you are saying that swords are supported, and they are equal, and then in the same breath saying they are not equal.

[Taleran]

1. Proof. All the militaries in the world use ranged weapons - and my country (the British Empire it was called back then) regularly destroyed numerically superior opponents because our troops had significantly more ranged weapons than their opponents
2. This is an assumption that feeds into later inductions to come to the conclusion that your character would choose a firearm. I'll lay out the entire list of inductions below for you to ponder. Asserting that you can enter combat with a knife does not refute this.
3. You can win combat with a toothpick, but I'll choose the knife over that. And the gun over the knife. Your likelihood of winning is affected by your choice of weapon.

---

Induction chain:

1. Ranged weapons are better than melee weapons
2. Your character expects to enter combat
3. Your character wants to win any combat they enter
4. Your character is aware of the first point
5. Ranged weapons are available
6. From 2, 3: Your character makes choices on the basis of what will maximise their chances of victory
7. From 4, 6: Your character will prefer to choose a Ranged Weapon over a melee weapon
8. From 5, 7: Your character will choose a Ranged Weapon

---

"the person wants their character to use a sword"

Then they're playing the wrong game. They should go play D&D or Exalted where their character can use a sword and still be rational. If they choose a sword where it is not rational then their conceptions about what the game should be about are markedly different from what the game designers thought, and they will not enjoy playing. This isn't an asserion I'm making, this is the way it is. No amount of arguing on the internet is going to change that.

You seem to be of the impression that we are saying "YOU CANNOT USE SWORDS NOOB". We're not. We're telling you that the game makes using a sword suck.

So people used Guns in the real world, NO FUCKING SHIT

I'm sorry if the first thought going through my head is that this may JUST MAY not be the real world...

"There are people who run around gunfights with a katana and this isn't considered weird or suicidial."

again because of the rapid ease of saving yourself and being resleeved after combat being suicidal isn't nessisarily a bad thing just a temporary setback

and again its irrelevent if you read through the rule book and say I want to use a Sword, there is NOTHING in the rules stopping you from doing that.

But you know what? I don't really care. I don't think swords should be equal to guns in a sci-fi setting-so if they're not, that strengthens the game for me. But the game should make it very clear that swords are not a supported weapon type, and are included mostly for you to have because they look cool. But you, you are saying that swords are supported, and they are equal, and then in the same breath saying they are not equal.

no no no, the rules for melee combat and ranged combat are viable the weapons themselves are quite different and that all falls on personal preference

[Cielingcat]

So your new argument is that swords being suicidal is ok because killing yourself isn't a bad thing?

Fucking wow.

[Taleran]

what are you talking about, the melee weapons for the most part of have good AP, deal good damage and wether or not you use them shouldn't be decided on rules anyway it should be based on how you want to make your character

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Take your ROLE vs. ROLL bullshit elsewhere. Knowing how the rules behave influences how people want to make characters. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying.

you've never played a roleplaying game have you? You just play Video Games on Paper

I feel sorry for you

but that isn't what this thread is about

So your new argument is that swords being suicidal is ok because killing yourself isn't a bad thing?

Fucking wow.

its not a new argument I used it last page, its a portion of it

[CatharzGodfoot]

So your new argument is that swords being suicidal is ok because killing yourself isn't a bad thing?

Fucking wow.

Don't bring a gun to a suitcase nuke fight.