However, formulas could be used instead of tables.
Well, you will note I have a "kinda-sorta" formula in the RoCo version (albeit partially presented in a table). Essentially every 10% over the the basic to-hit value increased the damage by a factor from a (low) base number.
I'd have far less problem with the tables is there were substantive research as to the results and didn't appear to be numbers drawn out of a hat.
Well the general principles were thought out, but as you say the actual numbers themselves were less than sophisticated. It's a typical complaint on ICE forums that AT's 5 and 9 for example were pure punishment.
no subject
Well, you will note I have a "kinda-sorta" formula in the RoCo version (albeit partially presented in a table). Essentially every 10% over the the basic to-hit value increased the damage by a factor from a (low) base number.
I'd have far less problem with the tables is there were substantive research as to the results and didn't appear to be numbers drawn out of a hat.
Well the general principles were thought out, but as you say the actual numbers themselves were less than sophisticated. It's a typical complaint on ICE forums that AT's 5 and 9 for example were pure punishment.