|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 12, 2009 2:03:27 GMT -5
OK, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. Must goto bed now.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 12, 2009 15:53:01 GMT -5
I think it was me that brought up the Advantage/Disadvantage thing.. but it dosent sound that bad to base the cost on Cost Level, except that each of them has a fixed Cost Level, which can easy be altered..
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 13, 2009 21:24:11 GMT -5
Ok we're going to do a direct comparison by the numbers of TWF's flat cost system for healing factor vs Dionon's proposed healing factor that weights health into the cost. Then I'm going to compare the costs for characters with DUR 3, DUR 5, and DUR 7 so we get a good idea of how it will look. We will set their energy pool at 5 and energy regen at 8R per panel. We will set their healing factor to the equivalent of Enhanced HF = 1 Health recovered per panel.
Summary of TWF proposal:
x2 Natural Healing = CL 3 (1 white) Healing Factor = CL5 (3 white) Accelerated HF = CL7 (6 white) Enhanced HF = CL 8 (9 white)
Summary of Dionons proposal:
Health + X + Y = Healing IF X= White stones healed Y = 1 = Hour Y = 2 = Every other Panel Y = 3 = Every Panel
Scenario 1. DUR 3.
TWF S1
Health 3 1W Healing Factor Enhanced 9W Energy 5 3W Energy regen 8 9W
Total 22W
Dionon S1 Health 3 HF = 3 + 1 + 3 = CL 7 = 6W Energy 5 3W Energy Regen 8 9W
Total 18W
Scenario 2. 5 DUR.
TWF S2
Health 5 3W Healing Factor Enhanced 9W Energy 5 3W Energy regen 8 9W
Total 24W
Dionon S2
Health 5 HF = 5+1+3 = 9 = 12W Energy 5 3W Energy regen 8 9W
Total 24W
Scenario 3. 7 DUR.
TWF S3
Health 7 6W Enhanced Healing Factor 9W Energy 5 3W Energy Regen 8 9W
Total 27W
Dionon S3
Health 7 HF = 7 + 1 + 3 = 20W Energy 5 3W Energy Regen 8 9W
Total 32W
Observations:
1. TWF's system is more expensive at low levels of durability but its flat cost means that it does not penalize players with higher health totals for taking Enhanced HF.
2. Dionon's system scales proportionately with DUR and thus gets increasingly more expensive than TWF's proposal. Thus making it very expensive the more health a character has. The system does make it easy to figure out increased levels of healing factor and how much its going to cost. It DOES get slightly cheaper for lower DUR characters though so that shouldn't be overlooked.
Overall I'd say the advantages of a fixed chart make costs simpler to figure out and keeps costs from ballooning for healthier characters. I would suggest that there should be 1 more level of HF for TWF's chart. 2 health healed per panel at 15W. This would be the new high end HF.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 13, 2009 21:34:05 GMT -5
Uh dude... I dont charge seperately for Health and Healing Factor... they are paid for at once... Your numbers are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 13, 2009 21:48:28 GMT -5
Uh dude... I dont charge seperately for Health and Healing Factor... they are paid for at once... Your numbers are wrong. Right I forgot you did it weird like that. One quick tweak will fix it but I think the numbers will still be similar.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 13, 2009 22:05:07 GMT -5
That looks better.. and with only 5 stones of difference in the end... I think my system actually makes a good argument..
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 13, 2009 22:16:58 GMT -5
There are certainly advantages and disadvantages to both systems. One has simplicity on its side, just look up a chart and you know your cost. Also health becomes irrelevant to cost. The other has scalability built in and is cheaper at lower levels of health but pricier at higher levels of health. I think it's a matter of preference. But the debate may hinge on the issue - do we want the cost of health regeneration to factor in someone's total health?
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 13, 2009 22:30:52 GMT -5
I do, that's why I built the system... I still say someone with higher health gets much more use out of it than someone with low health...
It's just that no one will agree with me because they don't see the pattern I do...
|
|