Print

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

[kj1225]

But they're just going to do that anyways won't they? They're just going to take a bit longer.

[Nikitian]

Actually, there is no reason to go beyond a single +2, since it's 15 points effectively, and three -1s spread around different skills sum up to the same 15 points. But even two +1s are inefficient then.

That's why, as Toaster said, it was proposed to add a 'free' +1/-1 on a separate skill option, since it allows for two +1s/ two -1s just as the original system had it with Mercenary profession.
For the record, in that case the chargen progression would go this way:

Code: [Select]

1 +1:  1 -1                      ( 5 points: 5 points)
2 +1:  2 -1 if on separate stats (10 points:10 points)
2 +1:  3 -1 if on the same stat  (15 points:15 points)
3 +1:  4 -1 ( 4=1+1+2) (the inefficiency of over-specialization starts to kick in)
4 +1:  7 -1 ( 7=1+1+2+3)
5 +1: 11 -1 (11=1+1+2+3+4)

[Hapah]

That's the thing, there's just no real point to make a character with anything more than a single plus one or else you're neutering yourself in a bunch of other stuff.

-snip-That said, I understand why PW did it; to avoid people trying to minmax lots of -2s into skills they'll never use for bonuses to skills they will use a lot.

But they're just going to do that anyways won't they? They're just going to take a bit longer.

I know little more than you guys do, but I imagine Toaster has the right of it. There's nothing stopping you from trying to just max your character, but minmaxing (which is a little different) will be hard. I guess the question boils down to: how specialized should a newbie fresh out of the box be?

[syvarris]

@Beirus (Jason Caldwell)

Your initial distriburions are fine, but you did the skill levelup slightly inefficiently.  If you started with Exo at +2, and general knowledge at +0, it would only take five point to upgrade GK, and you'd have five point more than you currently do.

@Kri (more starting points)

I agree with this.  The current system essentially replaces the old profession system, but doesn't have any beginning stat points like the old system.  That means that you're forced to minmax yourself in some areas, or be equally incompetent in everything- which is worse, because you'll always be overshadowed by someone with a better stat bonus than you.   Our teams are large enough that there'll probably always be someone skilled in a given task, so if you try to do anything you're a hazard.

@Nikitian (One more free +1/-1)

As much as it pains me to say so, this is abusable.  It allows a +2, at the cost of two -1s, which are cheaper to remove than the +2 is to get.  Therefore, it would be strictly inefficient for anyone to not take two penalties, which I don't think is PW's goal.  Kri's idea is better, because it doesn't encourage minmaxing.

Actually, there is no reason to go beyond a single +2, since it's 15 points effectively, and three -1s spread around different skills sum up to the same 15 points. But even two +1s are inefficient then.

That's why, as Toaster said, it was proposed to add a 'free' +1/-1 on a separate skill option, since it allows for two +1s/ two -1s just as the original system had it with Mercenary profession.

There is a reason to go beyond a single +2, and it's based on being in a team.  See, if you don't plan on ever using med, you can pretty safely put -2 in it, and you'll almost always be around a medic (who'll likely also carry the supplies needed to use the skill).  If you use exo weapons, you will probably never use uncon since they're so close in purpose and they require different stats.  That's another -2.  Finally, handiwork can be safely penalized if you don't have a great interest in tinker (and even if you do, you can pay someone with good handi).  That's another -2, for a total of -6.

Yes, every one of those -2s can kill you if you get in the wrong situation.  However, you can deliberately avoid those situations, while trying to take the ones that require your skills, meaning that overall 95% of the time you're being saved by your high skills, and only want to use the penalized skills 5% of the time.

I find it harder to justify -10 skills total, because it hamstrings you in so many areas, but it can make sense for the same reasons.  Just make sure you never ever leave the group if you do that.

[Xantalos]

Updated my sheet slightly, since I think I'd need some levels in General knowledge to pull some of the shapeshifting bull I try at times.

[Toaster]

@Nikitian (One more free +1/-1)

As much as it pains me to say so, this is abusable.  It allows a +2, at the cost of two -1s, which are cheaper to remove than the +2 is to get.  Therefore, it would be strictly inefficient for anyone to not take two penalties, which I don't think is PW's goal.  Kri's idea is better, because it doesn't encourage minmaxing.

Except that going from +1 to +2 would still require an extra -1 somewhere else, since that second level costs twice as much as the first.  This would just mean starting with a +2 would require -3 total instead of -4.

[syvarris]

Uh, Toaster, I think you misunderstood the current system.  Here's the costs as I understand them:

((Ya did.  Bonuses in each category go like this:
For a cumulative total bonus of +1, you need a cumulative total penalty of -1.
For a cumulative total bonus of +2, you need a cumulative total penalty of -3.
For a cumulative total bonus of +3, you need a cumulative total penalty of -6.
For a cumulative total bonus of +4, you need a cumulative total penalty of -10.

A +2 already requires only minus three.  You're suggesting making it cost minus two.  Unless I'm really confused, which isn't impossible.

[Nikitian]

I'll look it over, but I think you missed something:
It is proposed for there to be another separate +1 at the cost of one more -1
Which results in:

Code: [Select]

1 +1:  1 -1                      ( 5 points: 5 points)
2 +1:  2 -1 if on separate stats (10 points:10 points)
2 +1:  3 -1 if on the same stat  (15 points:15 points)
3 +1:  4 -1 ( 4=1+1+2) (the inefficiency of over-specialization starts to kick in)
4 +1:  7 -1 ( 7=1+1+2+3)
5 +1: 11 -1 (11=1+1+2+3+4)

So it is not beneficial to take anything, it is merely balanced both +2 in single stat (equivalent to three single -1s, i.e. 15 points) and +1 +1 in two stats (equivalent to two single -1s, i.e. 10 points). It is just that, as it currently is, it is strictly inefficient to try spreading the chargen bonuses, which goes to the contrary of earlier ideas behind some professions.

[Radio Controlled]

I like the new system. It's not overly difficult (to me, at least, though I haven't yet tried to respec) and kinda flexible. And I don't really think anything extra is needed at character generation. You are basically weighing being more powerful now, but with a hit in certain areas (which can be minmaxxed for, certainly for skills) against a potential better efficiency later but less utility in the short run.

If really needed, I'd say 5 skill and 5 stat points at the start would be best.

[Xantalos]

I like the new system. It's not overly difficult (to me, at least, though I haven't yet tried to respec) and kinda flexible. And I don't really think anything extra is needed at character generation. You are basically weighing being more powerful now, but with a hit in certain areas (which can be minmaxxed for, certainly for skills) against a potential better efficiency later but less utility in the short run.

If really needed, I'd say 5 skill and 5 stat points at the start would be best.

I agree with this, if only because I can't figure out what the other thing would entail.

[Doomblade187]

I like the new system. It's not overly difficult (to me, at least, though I haven't yet tried to respec) and kinda flexible. And I don't really think anything extra is needed at character generation. You are basically weighing being more powerful now, but with a hit in certain areas (which can be minmaxxed for, certainly for skills) against a potential better efficiency later but less utility in the short run.

If really needed, I'd say 5 skill and 5 stat points at the start would be best.

I agree with this, if only because I can't figure out what the other thing would entail.

The thing is, I don't think we need those extra points. To me, the new characters feel about the same as the old characters. Just require a little adjustment.

[Xantalos]

Pretty much yeah, I'm just a greedy bastard.

[Kriellya]

The thing is, I don't think we need those extra points. To me, the new characters feel about the same as the old characters. Just require a little adjustment.

They don't to me, because it is *not reasonable* for me to spec as a fleshtech, or merc, or any of the other more broadly spread 'classes'.

Basically, the issue for me is that it feels highly restrictive to *create* characters right now, because spreading out is pretty heavily penalized. In terms of 'character identity', you can basically only have one really good stat and one really good skill at the start, instead of making a character that is experienced at multiple things.

I can make Skylar feel like Skylar... but *only* because I have 5 missions under my belt. If I were making a fresh character, I *can't* make a fleshtech, without feeling really penalized. Part of that is because, with making a character that already has stats, I can trivially see that adding points to Aux in the initial phase is *bad mathematically*

[Radio Controlled]

Ok, so the problem is, at its core, that putting +2 into a skills grants 15 points worth, where putting +1+1 only nets 10 points. One thing I came up with in irc (sorry again I had to drop an otherwise interesting discussion, but my connection just keeps quitting for random intervals   ) was to basically give every character 5 points to spend in the beginning (after char creation aka a free level up), but the characters who go for +2 don't get it. It solves the point discrepancy, and gives the following cases:     
all 0: end with 1 +1                                                                            5 point total
+1/-1 : end with two +2 or 1 +1 and +5 points in same skill                 5 point total
+1+1/-3: end with three +1                                                                0 point total
+2/-3: end with 1 +2, but no 5 points to spend                                     0 point total
(assuming -5 points per -1)

This didn't seem very popular, but it does solve the 5 point difference between +1+1/+2, and gives an even bigger bonus to more rounded characters. Another way to solve it is cap starting bonus at +1, but that also wasn't very popular.

We could always remove the special chargen system (aka all 0, not my favorite), or restrict it to a single +1/-1 like it used to be, maybe with then 5 or 10 points extra to spend to make up? And maybe a rule that every skill at 0 gets extra -1?

All that said, I personally still don't really think the difference is big enough to warrant a need for any extra rules, but I might be biased since I'm not a new character, so I'm brainstorming here.

[Nikitian]

As outlined in IRC, the two main problems I see with it is that these are 'extra' points and they would needlessly complicate checking for correct levelling. 'Extra' means that at start even an absolutely-rounded all-0 character can have an extra +1 with no penalties whatsoever, which is probably against the original idea.

Now, as I stipulated, those 5 points at +2vs.+1+1 comparison (or at +2+1 vs. +1+1+1 comparison in case of proposed change) are not 'net gain' for a focused-build character; they are 'loss' for diversified-build character. This loss in intrinsic to the system; the original system balances around gaining more and more bonuses and penalizes for spreading out. IF it were reworked to suit the +2 cap, by charging exactly -1 for every 0->+1 and -2 for every +1->+2 it would be perfectly balanced around the levelling system and allow for any amount of bonuses and penalties... which might not have been desired by creator.
By introducing the single compromise of the proposed change, however, we shift the balance slightly toward two-stat-capable characters, lessen the general trouble of making diversified characters in general and keep most of the original balance and intention in place. (Which, yes, includes the generated character being more and more point-inefficient the further you specialise one.)

Also, I believe that giving points outright is a hard counter to the problem, and external one at that; I hope that by using soft counter internal to the system in question the desired balance could be achieved in a more natural and fruitful way.