|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 18:41:37 GMT -5
I clarify again: If there's a problem, it's with the concept that a character with high Ranged Combat and superhuman Targeting is powerful because of the x2 damage. That isn't the case. He's powerful because he has Targeting, which is, you know, a super power. Without it, he probably sucks ass.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 18:52:39 GMT -5
I understand the math, I just don't understand your point.
X2 damage is AN advantage, no matter how small.
Your example is flawed because you're not going to have a character with Ranged Combat 4, Close Combat 4, and Strength 4 EVER trying to decide whether he should shoot an opponent or punch him. The character will be designed to either punch or shoot.
What you will get is a player creating said character, looking at the various options, and very quickly picking up on the fact that Ranged Combat offers a free bonus (x2 damage, not to mention range), gets a Modifier at the exact same cost, and the only major benefit to Close Combat (ability bonus) is highly energy intensive.
Also, you've failed to illustrate within comic book logic why every gun should have any advantage at all, regardless of how much benefit is actually provided. I've never seen anything in any Marvel comic (even low powered ones like Punisher) that leads me to believe that you're better off to have a gun than, say, a knife or your bare hand.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 19:14:15 GMT -5
Ok folks... back to your corners....
WK makes a very good point TWF... Advantages are advantageous no matter what.....
BUT....
How bout you put in example what you want Weapons to have for bonuses (which I know you've done before, but hell man... this might make this argument go away.)
From what I've gathered from your posts, you think this.
Normal Ranged Weapons (9MM, 357, 45, Throwing Knives, Small Rocks, etc) Nothing Better Ranged Weapons (357 or 45 Magnum, Small boulders, Uzi) +1 damage Superior Ranged Weapons (Small Rockets, Medium sized Boulders, AK-47) 2x Damage
Now... if that is the case, I can see 2x damage coming into play where I have it. This is because, they are Superior Weapons, and have the damage output to warrant the advantage....
And, in a reverse of WK's logic, Rockets, Mid-Sized Boulders and AK's have been proven more effective in comics than fists, unless those fists belong to the likes of Thing, Hulk or Wonderman... You know... those guys that would have "Titanic Strength +4 - 6" as their Generic Modifier to Close Combat.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:15:12 GMT -5
I understand the math, I just don't understand your point. X2 damage is AN advantage, no matter how small. Yes, x2 damage is AN advantage, no matter how small. We agree there. Where we disagree is that you think it makes RC unbalanced, and I KNOW IT DOES NOT. lol When you say "your example", please provide my quote. If you're referring to the example in which I mused that if I had equal amounts of RC and CC, I'd use CC to hurt Captain America, then you're embarrassing yourself again. At no point did I suggest that characters should actually be built this way. THE REASON I wrote that is to illustrate the advantages of one Combat Action over the other. Claiming that my point was something else means you either don't understand what I'm saying, or you're deliberately putting words in my mouth, AGAIN. Pick whichever you like. OH MY GOD YOU DO NOT GET IT. Here it is one more time, explained as I would explain it to my 6 month old niece: Ranged Combat: As it stands, max output of 10 stones of attack. MOST RC characters will have between AN 5 and AN 7 depending on how much they depend on RC. Close Combat: By comparison, max output of 20 stones of attack (AN 10 and Ability 10). MOST CC characters will have between AN 5 and AN 7 depending on how much they depend on CC. And let's face it, they'll probably have a best Ability somewhere between 4 and 6. Ranged Combat vs Close Combat: The difference should be obvious to anyone. Ranged Combat can't output as many stones as Close Combat. However, weapons provide range, and I advocate some bonus (a big knife or 9mm gun might get +1 damage; an AK-47 should get x2 damage). This means that Close Combat is better against opponents with high defenses (because they can put in lots of stones and overcome a lot of defense, dealing damage). By comparison, Ranged Combat with, say, x2 damage weapons, is weak against high defenses (because of the low max stone output) but can deal tons of damage against opponents with very low defenses (usually people weaker than themselves). The lower the defenses, the more that x2 damage adds up. What x2 Damage Does: x2 damage only helps if you do damage. Look at the chart I made. Look how often x2 damage actually helps. Look at it! You only see increases at 2 stones, 5 stones, 8 stones and so on. It feels as though you're going to do SO MUCH DAMAGE but it doesn't work out that way, thanks to the system where you round up to the nearest white. THIS is a different point. If you want to argue that guns should have absolutely no benefit, ever ever ever ever ever ever ever, and that a bullet is basically just a long-distance punch, and that you're a friggin' moron if you chose Ranged Combat without a magical bow, then FINE! That's okay! But if you want to argue that handing out x2 damage assault rifles breaks RC open and makes it better than Close Combat, you're just plain wrong. It makes it DIFFERENT, that's all. Not better, just different. RC would be stronger against mooks. CC would be stronger against heroes. That is what the math says. I'm done explaining Grade 3 math. The point is there whether you want to believe it or not. I highly suggest you try it out: make a couple CADs and test out the numbers for yourself. Make them as similar as you can: if one guy has a modifier, give the other guy one too. You keep saying that someone who focuses on RC will have Targeting; by that logic, someone who focuses on CC will have a modifier too. Test it out and you'll see. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 19:26:17 GMT -5
TWF... you missed something I said somewhere along the line.
As a corollary to the point that (in your opinion), AK-47's should automatically do X2 damage "because its logical" (even though its clearly NOT comic book logical), I pointed out that potent hand-held weapons should also receive X2 damage, and then we're back to square one, making fighting bare-fisted the ugly step child.
i.e. Ranged Combat dude = Ranged Combat + Modifier + Weapon Benefit Armed Combat dude = Close Combat + Ability Bonus + Modifier + Weapon Benefit Unarmed Dude* = Close Combat + Ability Bonus + Modifier
* Unarmed Dude represents THE most common type of fighter in all of comics, and no matter how logical it may seem that weapons are inherently advantageous, comic book logic disagrees with this notion.
From the top down, those that fight up close (Hulk all the way down to Daredevil) rarely choose to fight armed, even when some of them (Daredevil) have obvious weapons on-hand at all times. Are all of these heroes just stupid, and don't understand the benefit they'd be getting by picking up a stick?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:37:43 GMT -5
I'm happy to discuss THIS point. THIS is a different point. I hope to high heaven that you concede to the rest.
For starters, to nitpick at your lineup of dudes: I'm currently talking in another thread about whether or not to allow CC to have Ability Bonus + Weapon benefit for free/by default. I'm actually arguing against it.
If you DON'T give them both at once, for free, then Armed Combat dude becomes basically the same as Ranged Combat Dude, but without the range. Armed Combat dude loses the beauty pageant.
I maintain again that Unarmed dude is still the most heroic. Unarmed dude is the one who brings down the big boys. Yes, it costs a lot of energy, but that's okay. We've upped energy pools and now you can buy whatever Energy recovery you like.
(Also, Close Combat dudes and dudettes benefit the most from Efficient.)
I will easily admit that I'm advocating weapons with bonuses because it's "logical". However, the reason I'm NOT tossing the idea away is because I don't think it shatters the comic book reality where guns really ain't that great. Because seriously, RC suffers from low stone output, and that's a major limitation when it comes to fighting with the big boys.
Basically, I think we can get away with a little more logic. The system is okay without it, too. Just don't try to argue that the reason we shouldn't have x2 damage guns is because it's broken. It isn't. It really really really isn't.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 19:39:27 GMT -5
*sigh* So ignored.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 19:44:53 GMT -5
I guess then that the issue of whether weapons can grant benefit when using an ability modifier is a pretty huge issue in terms of the utility of weapons.
IF weapons can't be used alongside ability modifiers... I actually cede your point because... well exactly what you said.
As a side note, however... don't be surprised if you see A LOT of players wanting/willing to sacrifice the high-end potential output in favor of free stones. To some extent we see that already in MURPG as it exists (or we did, until players realized how easy and cheap it was to get A LOT of modifiers to one action).
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:45:31 GMT -5
Who said that? Is someone there? .... Nope, guess not.
^__^
I do appreciate you pointing that out, Dio. Yes, that's pretty much what my list looks like.
An example from my games, in Last Class, some Purifiers recently had their asses handed to them primarily by Dio's character, who has Toughness 4 and has been pumping stones into defense the whole time. His defense was consistently at or above the max output of the guns he was facing. The x2 damage on those rifles was meaningless. Dio took on a whole squad as a result. However, some Reavers just teleported in, and they have massive strength scores. They're unarmed combat guys, and that's why they're a serious threat to the New Mutants. (One of them is about to throw a car. I'm not saying at whom, but it is going to leave a mark. ^__^)
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 19:50:49 GMT -5
As a side note, however... don't be surprised if you see A LOT of players wanting/willing to sacrifice the high-end potential output in favor of free stones. To some extent we see that already in MURPG as it exists (or we did, until players realized how easy and cheap it was to get A LOT of modifiers to one action). Oh, I won't be surprised. This is one of the reasons why I wanted a higher min cost for generic modifiers. Paying 1 white per MN up to MN 4 makes me nervous. If someone buys a weapon that actually grants free stones, they SHOULD use it. Characters with special weapons tend to use them, bread and butter. But off-the-shelf melee weapons that only have effects are a different story. I see people switching between weapons and body strikes as the situation dictates. Someone with a spear ("reach" advantage of 1 stone of defense against melee opponents who don't have their own "reach") will probably use it only when they think they need the defense, or when they think they can do damage without using their ability bonus. But when they really want to cut loose and obliterate someone, they're going to do it with a sudden, devastating dropkick. That's the kind of fight I want to see. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 18, 2009 10:30:18 GMT -5
Sounds like this has gone over to a weapons discussion.. But I think if weapons generally become a 1 stone modifier with some flavor (2xD, AP, ect..), keeping Force Blast as a Actions will make it much more advantagous than a normal Range Combatant.. However, that range combatant could also buy a +5 Ancient Rifle of Sir. Colt and gain free stones from that.. But as far as i undestand, Targetting wont applie? Action + One Modifier (no difference between weapons or "natural" modifeirs)?
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 18, 2009 10:32:47 GMT -5
Oh, I won't be surprised. This is one of the reasons why I wanted a higher min cost for generic modifiers. Paying 1 white per MN up to MN 4 makes me nervous. ~TWF Given the 1 for 1 limitation on Modifier stones, I really don't think it'll be a problem. If you could get your full Modifier no matter how many stones you spent from your pool, I'd agree with you that MN+2 might be a bit low.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 12:32:39 GMT -5
The reason it makes me nervous is that I'm pretty sure all Modifiers will come out at 4 because it's the most economical. I consider a Modifier of 4 to be very powerful.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 18, 2009 13:35:10 GMT -5
You are not alone about that.. a modifier of 4 is powerful.. It will allow someone to put out and effect of 5 without getting tired and probrably more since the energy regeneration will be around 4 or 5..
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 18, 2009 13:45:46 GMT -5
You are not alone about that.. a modifier of 4 is powerful.. It will allow someone to put out and effect of 5 without getting tired and probrably more since the energy regeneration will be around 4 or 5.. We've at least prevented that sort of abuse. It's been agreed in another thread (by many people) that we're limiting all Modifiers to the "Targeting" effect, where you only get 1 stone of Modifier per stone of effect. So, if you have a Modifier of 4, and you only put 2 stones in your box, you only get 2 stones from the Modifier. ~TWF
|
|