Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lucus Casius]

I was going to say.  Without the 10E limit, I'd have totally made something even more overpowering than that sword of silver. =p

Edit:  Also, it strikes me that going by the way you're implementing the half cost for agent traits rule, adding multiple traits with typical values under 2 actually reduces the cost.

(Say you have a trait normally worth 1.5 and a trait worth 1.8.  Separately, applied to an agent, they would be worth 0.75 and 0.9 E, respectively.  However, placed on the same object and multiplying, we get 0.675 E total cost.  If you're going to do the multiplication thing and retain the reduction in agent trait cost, you should only apply the 50% cost reduction AFTER multiplying all the traits together, and not to each trait separately.)

Edit 2:  On the other hand, if you switch to an additive system without changing the current costs, then negative traits will actually increase the costs of the item/agent.  Which, I assume, is not intended.  You'd have to apply negative costs to those in an additive system and forbid anyone from creating items with total values equal to less than 0.

[Happy Demon]

Well, you could always steal another page out of KJP's book. Namely the increments of the value of the traits. Might take a bit of math though.
Then again, it did get awfully complicated later on.

[Criptfeind]

Free actions, alright. Hum. I have to admit I still don't know how to even calculate that. The rules on your multiplication are confusing and the implications are a little bit terrifying. Like Lucus Casius said, if you're not careful with your division you're going to end up with very bad prices, which seems to be how you have it in your examples put out (apparently Toms blessing of good looks decreases the cost of blessing him?) Also its unclear if base costs are added and not multiplied to the whole thing... Which is how you've written it for trinkets but not for agents (who's base costs appear to be multiplied into it.), are agents and trinkets different in this way? Or is it like... Suppose to be that way? Also I think the math is off on the Shrine... Afaik 1.5+3*1.5=6 (6.75 if you don't follow the order of operations)

I have to be honest as much as I'm a fan of free stuff, perhaps it'd be more prudent to instead just put a hold on actions entirely, fix the system, figure out the prices for the actions that have happened, decide if the players want to and can pay that price or not, and then move on with the game. Instead of having a free for all somewhat broken rush, with a limit that we can't even calculate.

[Happy Demon]

Free actions, alright. Hum. I have to admit I still don't know how to even calculate that. The rules on your multiplication are confusing and the implications are a little bit terrifying. Like Lucus Casius said, if you're not careful with your division you're going to end up with very bad prices, which seems to be how you have it in your examples put out (apparently Toms blessing of good looks decreases the cost of blessing him?) Also its unclear if base costs are added and not multiplied to the whole thing... Which is how you've written it for trinkets but not for agents (who's base costs appear to be multiplied into it.), are agents and trinkets different in this way? Or is it like... Suppose to be that way? Also I think the math is off on the Shrine... Afaik 1.5+3*1.5=6 (6.75 if you don't follow the order of operations)

I have to be honest as much as I'm a fan of free stuff, perhaps it'd be more prudent to instead just put a hold on actions entirely, fix the system, figure out the prices for the actions that have happened, decide if the players want to and can pay that price or not, and then move on with the game. Instead of having a free for all somewhat broken rush, with a limit that we can't even calculate.

Um, math error. Division and multiplication takes priority over addition and subtraction.
1.5 + 3 * 1.5 = 6
1.5 + (3 * 1.5) = 6
(1.5 + 3) * 1.5 = 6.75
Tedious, I know, but you have to get it correct.

Anyway, I think the free action isn't the worst of solutions. It keeps the momentum going, and gives him some breathing space to figure things out.
Besides, it's early game, there's not much we can do yet. If it was later in the game, then it'd be disastrous.

[Criptfeind]

Um, math error. Division and multiplication takes priority over addition and subtraction.
1.5 + 3 * 1.5 = 6
1.5 + (3 * 1.5) = 6
(1.5 + 3) * 1.5 = 6.75
Tedious, I know, but you have to get it correct.

I can't tell if you're talking to me or the GM with that, but in case it's me (you did quote me after all), yes, that's what I just said. Like. Pretty much exactly.

The issue with free actions with a limit of 10E is until we actual have the system is figured out we still don't even know how much they cost. Also with the... Alright. I'll say it. Frankly absurd way that agent cost reduction works with things that cost 2 or less given in the examples, something needs to be changed or clarified. I mean. I'm not the only one who can see given by the examples given it's possible currently to make an agent with multiple levels of almost every single good power for only a few E right now right? That's clearly not how it's suppose to work, so we have no basis to make our actions on. And until we do piling up more and more actions to go and retroactively figure out is only going to increase the confusion and work required. Frankly, I don't mind waiting for a system to be figured out. My issue is the idea that we do a bunch of stuff that turns out to be impossible, or we suddenly (whoever take advantage of it) have some really really op shit.

[Bluexdog]

bump