|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 12:26:32 GMT -5
Modifier improvement costs:
MN 0-1: 10 LOE + CL adjustment (Learn a new modifier)
MN 1-3: 10 LOE
MN 4-7: 20 LOE
MN 8-10: 30 LOE
Ability improvement costs:
AN 1-3: 10 LOE
AN 4-7: 20 LOE
AN 8-10: 30 LOE
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 12:27:31 GMT -5
Action improvement costs: AN 0-1: 5 LOE + CL adjustment (Learn a new action) AN 1-3: 5 LOE AN 4-7: 10 LOE AN 8-10: 15 LOE This completely fails to compensate for the fact that Actions aren't created equally. As I've said already, 1 AN of a Mastery is probably worth a lot more than an AN of Social Skills. This system is compensating for one thing but not all the other hundreds of factors that influence what something's worth. Why compensate for any of them? I've never had any problem with LOEs in 1.0. Perhaps that's just my experience but I have been playing this game for a year now. ~TWF |
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 12:34:37 GMT -5
Higher ANs are ALWAYS better. Can you dispute this?
And how many people want to throw their 10 LOE to increase social skills from 2 to 3 when they can throw that 10 LOE into their Telepathy 8 and get a Telepathy 9.
This new scale encourages people to round out their lower AN actions for well balanced characters. Not just POUR all their LOE into one Uber action. At some point because of increased LOE costs, the Uber action will slow down in ability to level. Thus increased costs.
Mastery of fire 2 is not that much better than mastery of fire 3 in terms of how hard it is for a GM to deal with. Mastery fire 9 vs Mastery Fire 8 is an INHERENTLY a bigger deal.
I know you like playing devils advocate, but come on. HIGHER ANs should COST MORE than lower ANs.
Putting it ANOTHER way. Wolverine's Close Combat AN of 7 is considered about the top humanoid AN. Wouldn't it make sense for AN's higher than that to be more difficult to master if even Wolverine can't get there?
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 12:45:09 GMT -5
You keep sidestepping my actual point, dude.
Yes, higher ANs are conceivably worth more. Duh. But there are TONS of other factors that contribute to what a point of AN is worth. If you're going to account for one, how are you going to account for the rest?
It sounds crazy, but I say why bother? Honestly, for like the 3rd time, I haven't experienced a problem with this in 1.0. I've played a dozen + characters and GMed 3,000+ posts worth of my own games and this has never been a serious problem.
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 12:49:34 GMT -5
What point am I sidestepping except that you're attached to a 1.0 concept that is outdated? The more powerful your action becomes, the more it should COST to pay for it. It makes ZERO senses that going from AN 8 to AN 9 costs the same as going from AN 1 to AN 2. Do you have any LOGICAL points to make against this outside of pure NOSTALGIA?
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 12:52:29 GMT -5
What point am I sidestepping except that you're attached to a 1.0 concept that is outdated? The more powerful your action becomes, the more it should COST to pay for it. It makes ZERO senses that going from AN 8 to AN 9 costs the same as going from AN 1 to AN 2. Do you have any LOGICAL points to make against this outside of pure NOSTALGIA? Yes, higher ANs are conceivably worth more. Duh. But there are TONS of other factors that contribute to what a point of AN is worth. If you're going to account for one, how are you going to account for the rest? ~TWF |
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 16, 2009 12:59:18 GMT -5
Uh... yeah I gotta agree with TWF. Theres nothing wrong with a flat rate of increase regardless of what you're raising to.
Artificially forcing people to round out characters is stupid. Not everybody SHOULD have as much Social Skills as their Telepathy. Wolverine is OBVIOUSLY going to want to improve Close Combat over Social Skills.
If you want to make players consider the value of Social Skills, put them in situations where they have to USE Social Skills... don't punish them for not wanting to improve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 13:00:24 GMT -5
What point am I sidestepping except that you're attached to a 1.0 concept that is outdated? The more powerful your action becomes, the more it should COST to pay for it. It makes ZERO senses that going from AN 8 to AN 9 costs the same as going from AN 1 to AN 2. Do you have any LOGICAL points to make against this outside of pure NOSTALGIA? Yes, higher ANs are conceivably worth more. Duh. But there are TONS of other factors that contribute to what a point of AN is worth. If you're going to account for one, how are you going to account for the rest? ~TWF If you're suggesting that the CL of an action should ALSO increase the cost to advance it, then spit it out. The flat 10 LOE per increase obviously DOES NOTHING to address that issue, so how is it any better? I am suggesting a base cost system to pay to increase actions by LOEs. If you want to add stuff on TOP of it that's fine. But that does not invalidate the base system I'm proposing as being FLAT OUT, far more SENSIBLE than charging the same for going from 8 to 9 as from 1 to 2. |
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 16, 2009 13:03:27 GMT -5
Sorry, but thats "control freak" game design VJC. You're punishing people for improving whats important to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 13:06:38 GMT -5
FREE TIP: It helps to understand where I'm coming from if you actually read what I type to you.
I've already said it's just simpler (KISS, remember that?) to just leave the 1.0 LOE system mostly as it is. I've already said that I haven't encountered problems with it, and that if we can't account for everything, let's not bother to try. If it ain't that broken, let's not fix it.
Take your time and read that paragraph a few times. It's no rush, I can wait. I'm going to put on some tea or something.
I'm done discussing this. I've said everything I want to say - several times now.
~TWF
|
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 16, 2009 13:17:15 GMT -5
Hey vjc, Why not do it the way I've done it.
Actions/Abilities: 10 LoE (Abilities up to 4 only, after that, it's CC stones)
Modifiers: 15xCurrent Modifier Number LoE (Less per GM Approval)
I think that's fair all around.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjcsmoke on Feb 16, 2009 13:21:15 GMT -5
Sorry, but thats "control freak" game design VJC. You're punishing people for improving whats important to them. And nobody has yet to explain why it doesn't make sense to charge more for higher ANs then lower ANs. People aren't punished for upgrading what's important to them. They are encouraged to spread out their LOE and they are FAIRLY being charged more the more powerful that their action becomes. Instead we're avoiding the unbalanced CADs that are AN 8 AN 3 AN 2 AN 1 Why would any player want to upgrade those lower AN actions that are almost entirely ineffective when they could just improve their strongest action all the time? If you give an incentive, ie lower cost, to improve weaker actions, then the player doesn't feel pigeonholed that they MUST only improve their strongest action. Otherwise it's an ineffective allocation of experience for the player. Let's put it another way. How many players will have AN above 7? How many players will have AN between 1 and 7? Many more players will have AN between 1 and 7. And they are encouraged to upgrade their weaker actions by the cheaper LOE costs. One place where this is perfect - Student games where characters are starting out at low AN or learning new things for the first time. Actions should be easy to learn but DIFFICULT to master. This is what the new base cost system models. And I think it's totally bunk that 8 to 9 costs the same as 1 to 2. I haven't seen this in any other system and it needs to be addressed. Hey vjc, Why not do it the way I've done it. Actions/Abilities: 10 LoE (Abilities up to 4 only, after that, it's CC stones) This still doesn't solve the fundamental problem of AN 8 to AN 9 costing the same as AN 1 to AN 2. However I do like the idea of challenge stones as an alternative cost to increasing abilities rather than LOE. That's actually more expensive than my proposal for modifier costs. As increasing a modifier from 5 to 6 would cost 6x15 = 90 LOE, whereas my chart has that costing 20 LOE. So if anything TWF would oppose that even more violently than my proposal. You keep trying to say it's simpler when the only value it has is, "we did it that way before." How difficult is it to look up a simple chart to figure out how many LOE you need to pay? There are no formulas involved, no Xs, Ys, or Zs. Come on man! I think you understand the system perfectly fine and anyone can understand it just by looking at it. You're just being contrary because you're attached for whatever reason to a fundamentally unsound 10 LOE for everything system. |
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 16, 2009 13:28:10 GMT -5
You know guys.... vjc DOES have a point....
Perhaps we should put aside our pre-existing ideas, and actually take a look at this in the light in which vjc is presenting it.
He's right that Marvel is the only system where getting an ability from Level 1 to Level 2 is the same cost as getting it from Level 8 to Level 9.... Is that balanced? Or do we need to really look at the Experience system in this game?
|
|
|
|
Post by de5pa1r on Feb 16, 2009 13:38:17 GMT -5
Hey vjc, I don't want to jump on the bandwagon, but there's something important that nobody has mentioned concerning the importance of modifiers: the 2.0 idea that I think everyone has agreed on where modifiers only add free stones at a ratio of 1:1. That is, investing 1 from your AN means you get 1 from the general pool, up to how many stones you invest or how high your modifier is.
Therefore, upgrading your modifier to 6 while your AN stays at 5 is pointless. You'd have to upgrade actions before modifiers anyway. Just something I thought I'd throw out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 16, 2009 13:44:07 GMT -5
He's right that Marvel is the only system where getting an ability from Level 1 to Level 2 is the same cost as getting it from Level 8 to Level 9.... Is that balanced? Or do we need to really look at the Experience system in this game? I've looked at it. I'm okay with the old way. Is it balanced? No, not really. Is that a problem? Surprisingly, no. Is charging the same amount for Telepathy 4 with all options as you would for Social Skills 4 balanced? No, it isn't. Are we going to account for that, too? Juggernaut has a higher strength than Cyclops. Should they pay different amounts for raising their Close Combat ANs from 4 to 5? Wolverine has Close Combat and Black Ops, and Cyclops only has Close Combat. Should wolverine pay more for Black Ops because it can combine with his Close Combat and Cyclops doesn't have such an advantage? Wolverine has Claws and Cyclops doesn't. Finish the punchline yourself. Angel has Flight and Wolverine doesn't. Have fun thinking up your own. There are hundreds of ways in which no two ANs are equal. Balancing them all is insanity, especially when the KISS 10 LOE/per rate isn't big a problem to begin with. ~TWF |
|
