|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 22:48:40 GMT -5
Firstly, I don't care how crappy you think Pietro's CAD is... within the system itself, you've said yourself that you can't break my system. That's a point for me. Stop trying to shift this into my misinterpretation. I didn't say that because MY example didn't break it it's good... I said because YOU either CAN'T or refuse to break it with that SAME CAD that my system is good.. Get facts straight. There you go again, attempting to deflect things. My arguments are not in the least bit false to prove my example, at least when it comes to guns, I submit the following video evidence that you're wrong and that I'm at least half as credible as you're trying to prove I'm not. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Og9ccsb1v6o That's a normal human shooting 8 shots in 1 second on one target, or on 2 targets in 1.5 or so seconds, and then shooting 6 shots, reloading and then shooting 6 more in 2.3 or so seconds... if a NORMAL old man can do this... How many clips do you think Pietro can go through in 30 seconds? I did tell you exactly how I'd break your system. Repeatedly. You cannot seriously believe that you can have an honest test of a concept when the least objective person (you) is choosing all of the parameters, and throwing out any argument that goes outside those parameters. As far as the gun stuff... I don't know, depends on the gun. Eventually they overheat, jam, or break. The faster you fire them, the faster that occurs.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 22:55:10 GMT -5
I did tell you exactly how I'd break your system. Repeatedly. You cannot seriously believe that you can have an honest test of a concept when the least objective person (you) is choosing all of the parameters, and throwing out any argument that goes outside those parameters. As far as the gun stuff... I don't know, depends on the gun. Eventually they overheat, jam, or break. The faster you fire them, the faster that occurs. Nu uh... You tell me how you'd abuse this system to abuse it.. You tell me how you'd Power Game this. Trust me... I can power game if I want to... And me setting up the parameters? All I did was select Marvel's Trademark Speedster and said "Ok... here he is... break my system" You said "Can't cause he sucks..." Really? You're kidding me.. that's your argument? He sucks so your system must? Make a CAD, do a Test Battle, do something other that continuously spouting the same thing over and over again Run the Numbers. I'm not wrong, and the sooner you either definitively prove me so, or admit that I'm right the better. One way or another, we should settle this, and soon.. We need to move on.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 23:00:15 GMT -5
I'm objective. Explain the rules to me and I'll see what I can do.
I'm not going to build Quicksilver, though. I never intend on playing him, so if the rule only exists to portray Quicksilver, I'd rather we didn't have it.
Otherwise, fork the rule over and I'll see what I can do. I'm wondering how we're going to avoid spending all our energy in one panel..
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 17, 2009 23:02:11 GMT -5
No offense... but your attitude makes me not care if you're right or wrong.
You continue to try to force the concept that because Quicksilver isn't broken with the option, the option can't BE broken. False
You continue to pretend that Speed isn't already at least as useful, if not more useful, than any other Ability. False.
You continue to claim that by handing out an additional, free benefit to having a high Speed Ability you don't make Speed obviously superior to other choices. False
You continue to try to force me to engage in a test that can't prove anything because all of the elements of the system aren't in place yet, and you wish to set the parameters of that test which makes it anything BUT a true test.
You don't seem to get that anything that can be abused, will be abused. You can insult me all you want about "power gaming"... the fact that I know how power gamers think is an advantage of mine, not a fault.
Ultimately, theres just no profit in bothering to discuss this with you...
I'm sorry. Its unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 23:24:39 GMT -5
TWF, the rules are simple....
The minimum number of Actions you can have in a turn is 2....
After that, divide your speed by 2 (I originally included intelligence, but this argument has been purely about speed), round down, and that's how many actions you have per turn.
IE: Someone with a Speed of 6 would have 3, Speed of 8 would have 4, and a Speed of 10 would have 5 actions a round... Nothing too bad...
To Wildknight.
That last line made the most sense to me honestly. All this time, we've been bickering back and fourth that "It's not possible" or "It's broken" now it turns to Unnecessary. Ok, I can understand that feeling, and respect it. I'd honestly like to get more people involved in this discussion, and maybe, since the two of us can't come to a crossroads, maybe as a whole we can.
I'm sorry I sound like such a d1ck on this one, but I've continuously been looking over our conversations on this topic, and I can't find a place where either one of us has made a budge in the other... Maybe our opinions really are too different on this matter to ever make headway.
But, to answer your accusations
Your first accusation, the one about Quicksilver: I have said that yes. But it isn't because I think that Quicksilver is something special... in fact, it's the fact that he's NOT special really that makes me say it. He's the modern version of the Whizzer, who was a knock off of the Flash.. All speedsters come from the same source, Quicksilver is just Marvel's most famous one. I never said it CAN'T be broken. ANY rule can be broken. I'm just saying, that with a typical speedster, without power gaming, it's viable. Nothing more, nothing less has ever left my lips. (or fingers... in this case)
To the accusation that I pretend that Speed isn't already at least as useful, if not more useful than any other Ability: You and I differ in opinion on this fact. You see it your way, because you can see Speed Bonuses everywhere... Well, at the same time, I see Intelligence, Agility and Strength Bonuses everywhere.
Examples Acrobatics: No Speed... Only Strength/Agility Business Skills: No Speed.... Intelligence Only Close Combat: Allows any bonus... Ok Concentration: No Speed.... Intelligence Only Inventing: No Speed... Intelligence Only Ninja: Like Close Combat... ok Technology: No Speed... Intelligence Only Telekinesis and Telepathy: No Speed... Possibility for Intelligence, but Only Intelligence Thieving: No Speed... Agility Only Unstoppable: Hey! We have one that Specifies that it CAN have a Speed Bonus... Or Strength. Wall Crawling: No Speed... Agility or Strength Web Swinging: No Speed... Agility Only
So... with only 3 actions in the Core Book that can even think about Speed Bonuses, what's so useful about it? You can move. That's it.
To the accusation that I'm making Speed obviously superior to other choices: No.. this system was originally designed that High Intelligence was involved too, but I'll just go away on that one. Speed just catches up. Irony.
To the accusation that a test won't prove anything: A true playtest will tell us if I'm wrong. I mean if it's relatively easy to break my system... It's gonna shine through like a monkey at the wheel of a truck in rush hour traffic... All I've ever asked for was someone to sit down, and try this out, but we're too concerned with our own perceptions that we won't even do that much.
To the accusation that Anything that can be abused will be: Yep... I know... that's why GMs have to be smart. Look at 1.0... Do we really have an entire board full of Broken characters? No... because we don't allow that. Trust me, I've built some dag nasty broken characters before, and I was turned away from games because of it. A Smart GM will look at a CAD and analyse it, and make a judgment based on what he can handle. There is the occasion he's wrong, but that's what learning is for.
I hope I have answered each of your accusations fully.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 23:38:37 GMT -5
TWF, the rules are simple.... The minimum number of Actions you can have in a turn is 2.... After that, divide your speed by 2 (I originally included intelligence, but this argument has been purely about speed), round down, and that's how many actions you have per turn. IE: Someone with a Speed of 6 would have 3, Speed of 8 would have 4, and a Speed of 10 would have 5 actions a round... Nothing too bad... Name: Clutch Species: Human Mutant Age: 18 Abilities 19 white Int 3 Str 3 Agi 3 Spd 6 * Dur 3 Rec 6 Pool 7 Actions (8 white) Acrobatics 3 (Agility Bonus) Close Combat 5 (Speed Bonus) Unstoppable 3 (Speed Bonus) Modifiers (4 white) Piston Punches 4 - close combat modifier Probably plus some other Actions, but that's the meat of it. This seems like a pretty standard character to me - easily under 40+10 white, and it isn't even remotely optimized. Here's a combat panel: ======================== H: 3/3 E: 35/35 Action One: 11 stones into Close Combat + 4 Piston Punches, combined with: Action Two: 6 stones of Acrobatics, combined with: Action Three: 9 stones of Unstoppable, x2 damage Total attack: 31 stones, x2 damage H: 3/3 E: 12 ============================= Do you see where I'm going with this? What's stopping high-speed characters from just going nova on everybody, blowing through massive amounts of energy in one panel? Even if you limit only 2 actions can combine at once, I can easily set up a Speed 8 character who can combine two pairs of gargantuan Actions. ~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 23:42:42 GMT -5
Um... TWF... take the Acrobatic stones away, and you're still left with a 25 stone attack... That's pretty broken for 2 actions. But I can see your point. It's the same one that WK was making, and I understand that someone can power game the hell out of this. But as I proved in my first sentence, this isn't a case of power gaming because of my system, it's power gaming in general...
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 23:43:31 GMT -5
And how are you using your Speed twice? You already used your speed in your Close Combat, how are you also using it your Unstoppable?
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Feb 17, 2009 23:46:50 GMT -5
*shrug* I can easily afford higher ability scores if you don't allow Ability bonuses twice in the same panel (you didn't explicitly say that).
Also, yes, that was a gigantic attack even with just two Actions.. but what I was hoping to illustrate without having to write multiple examples is that as Speed increases, not only does the character get MORE actions, but his attacks get nastier too. And his initiative. And did I mention he can run at mach speeds?
I'm sorry, Dio, this is ridiculous. I would never allow anything even remotely resembling this. What you're trying to do is represent something you saw, even if it RUINS THE ENTIRE SYSTEM it's built on. That's lunacy and I won't waste any more time on it.
~TWF
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 17, 2009 23:51:25 GMT -5
Wow that's a strong reaction....
To be honest, I always thought using ability bonuses twice in a panel (Unless you divide your ability between the two actions) was forbidden... That's why I don't do it... It doesn't make sense that you're using all your speed to attack... and then use all your speed to use unstoppable...
Well... if that's the kind of reaction I'm going to get from everyone that sees this... I guess I have no point but to concede. I don't think this is such a big deal, but it seems that it really is the general consensus that it is. I would like to play test this at some point, but I'll be doing it on my own I guess... If I actually do, I'll bring my findings back and show you all...
Other than that, I guess case closed, and let's move on.
TBH: It seemed like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by Neros on Feb 18, 2009 10:15:38 GMT -5
Please stop getting into big fights in such a short time.. Think about the other members of this board... Our heads can't handle going through so many posts... Or, well, atleast my head... Please think about poor Neros's head..
But on to the debate.. I can understand why you want additional Actions for Speedsters Dio, but i dont think its needed (yea, it can make sense).. But in the examples I've read (or I remember), two actions would be enough..
Thats only 1 Action.. Spend 10 stones into Speed, then split them into 5 and 5.. 5 stones used to lift the car and 5 stones used to travel.. You don't spend actions for splitting stones in a Action/Ability box.. If it was so, then fighting against more than 2 opponents would be impossible.. Also, You don't spend stones to turn sharp corners, so why should you split them to get from point A to B?
Here, two actions are being used.. Close Combat and Speed.. I would say that picking up a plank wont require someone to spend stones in Strength, unless the plank would be heavier than a battle axe or claymore (which can be wielded without spending stones into strength)...
|
|
|
Post by malice on Feb 19, 2009 10:17:57 GMT -5
Perhaps you could increase the actions per panel based on classifications. Using this method would require that each action gain a classification. Classifications could be as follows: [Movement], [Defense], [Attack], and [Manipulation]
So a character could do one of each action type per panel (boosting max actions per panel up to 4), or two of one type at the cost of getting only 3 actions per panel.
So a character could fly [movement], keep up a force field [defense], fire a force blast [attack], and give their teammate a leadership stone [manipulation] all in one panel. Or they could focus on taking out as many enemies as possible with their apparently sizeable energy pool by using two attack actions (Ranged Combat or Force Blast twice) firing two force blasts a panel, sacrificing their defense action [force field] and their manipulation action [leadership], but remaining aloft with their movement action [flight] which would also have some stones in defense.
This way would also allow you to use certain actions or modifiers twice. In the example above I assume a full-powered force blast at two seperate targets, which can't be done with the current rules. However if you don't like this you can demand that the two attack-type actions be seperate ones.
This also keeps people from using three of the same type of action in a panel, since to do so would drop their action limit to 2 anyhow.
If a character doesn't possess any actions with a specific classification, they gain the ability to sacrifice that action-type every panel with no regrets. So if you don't have a manipulation action (and cannot therefore take 4 actions per panel) then you can ALWAYS sacrifice that slot to perform two of another action type.
|
|
|
Post by Dionon on Feb 19, 2009 11:06:18 GMT -5
Rather complex, but I like it. I don't think anyone else will though.
|
|
|
Post by WildKnight on Feb 19, 2009 11:08:48 GMT -5
I don't, because it favors characters with multiple action types even further than they already are.
Though it might not be a terrible idea to have a separate "movement" action set apart from the two actions per panel standard, on the caveat that stones spent there cannot be added to attacks or shifted to defense (not that they can't contribute to defense in the sense that the character who moves about can get behind cover or out of sight)
|
|
|
Post by de5pa1r on Feb 19, 2009 11:16:04 GMT -5
Malice, I don't think we'd want to give characters license to shoot or hit people 4 times in a turn.
Example: 4 Ranged Combat + 4 Targeting = 8; 8 x 4 = 24.
Why don't we allow for Ability Modifiers? 7 Speed with +3 Speed Modifier means that most of the time you wouldn't have to invest stones into getting somewhere.
|
|