Archive of the old official Mutants & Masterminds boards. See http://roninarmy.com/
RasmusM wrote:It seems you have done your calculations with a critvalue of 20 correct?
As most of my simulations are done with 16+ crit, we only have one directly comparable figure.
Basic Damage (where i also did a 20 crit simulation.)
RasmusM wrote:Your result for damage shift 0 is 10,13
My result as shown on the damage graph above was 10,14
In Elrics simulations he also found the average time to be 10,1.
So everyone pretty much agrees on that baseline. Thats a good first step.
RasmusM wrote:As a note) You might want to do more than 10.000 simulations. If found that results could vary a lot especially with combats taking longer than 5 average rounds. So i did all calculations with at least 300.000 simulations. when doing 300.000+ simulations i found the results would consolidate at the same answer down to 1 decimal.
RasmusM wrote:1) When calculating your degree of fail, you seem to use 1-4 = 1 degree, 5-9=2 degree, 10-14= 3degrees, 15+ 4 degrees
The numbers should be 1-5:1, 6-10:2, 11-15:3, 16+:4
irb(main):001:0> def degree(difficulty, check)
irb(main):002:1> result = check - difficulty
irb(main):003:1> (result/5) + (result<0 ? 0 : 1)
irb(main):005:0> degree(20,0) => -4
irb(main):006:0> degree(20,1) => -4
irb(main):007:0> degree(20,4) => -4
irb(main):008:0> degree(20,5) => -3
irb(main):009:0> degree(20,6) => -3
irb(main):010:0> degree(20,9) => -3
irb(main):011:0> degree(20,10) => -2
irb(main):013:0> degree(20,11) => -2
irb(main):014:0> degree(20,14) => -2
irb(main):015:0> degree(20,15) => -1
irb(main):016:0> degree(20,16) => -1
irb(main):017:0> degree(20,19) => -1
irb(main):018:0> degree(20,20) => 1
irb(main):019:0> degree(20,21) => 1
irb(main):020:0> degree(20,24) => 1
irb(main):021:0> degree(20,25) => 2
irb(main):022:0> degree(20,29) => 2
irb(main):023:0> degree(20,30) => 3
irb(main):024:0> degree(20,31) => 3
irb(main):025:0> degree(20,34) => 3
irb(main):026:0> degree(20,35) => 4
irb(main):027:0> degree(20,36) => 4
RasmusM wrote:2) When progressive: End of round saves only seem to add one or subtract one degree on a sucessful or failed save. A succesful save should remove all conditions, and a failed save should add 1, 2 or 3 degrees depending on how much the end of round save was missed by.
Progressive: This modifier causes an Affliction to increase incrementally without any effort from you. If the target fails a resistance check to end the Affliction, it not only persists, but increases in effect by one degree! So a target affected by the first degree of a Progressive Affliction who fails to resist progresses to the second degree of the effect at the start of his next round. A successful resistance check still ends the Affliction, as usual. +2 cost per rank.
RasmusM wrote:3) When cumulative: failure to save only seem to bump up the degree by 1. As in 2). Failures should bump up with 1,2 or 3 depending on how much the roll was failed by.
Cumulative: Normally, an Affliction does not have a cumulative effect on the same target, so getting two results of one degree, one after the other, has no more or less effect than a single one degree result; you have to get a higher degree with a later attack, which replaces the initial result. A Cumulative Affliction adds any further degrees to the existing degrees on the target. For example, if you hit a target and impose a vulnerable condition (one degree), then attack again and get one degree on the effect, you impose the Affliction’s second degree condition. +1 cost per rank.
RasmusM wrote:4) It seems you do not take a crit into account when doing end of round saves. You always roll saves vs a DC 20 (and not 25 in the case of a crit)?
RasmusM wrote:5) Do double staggers lead to incapacitated? I just could not find it. I guess it does since our numbers are similar.
RasmusM wrote:As i mentioned. I have never looked at Ruby programming before, so i might just be misreading or missing these things.
saint_matthew wrote:Any given ability is only as useful as it turns out to be in any given game.
saint_matthew wrote:An to play devils advocate for just a second, the point of affliction was never to be an encounter ender. It exists to give us a mathematical formula for the non damaging effect... Its the set up, to the one two knock out punch that is damage.
saint_matthew wrote:You can't really use mathematics to determine which ability is more useful in game terms, because to do so, you would first need to be able to determine the normal operating pattern for the oppositional force in any given game... An there isn't one: There is no such thing as a standard MnM game.
Any given ability is only as useful as it turns out to be in any given game.
RasmusM wrote:(Unless you make serious changes to the mechanics of how afflictions work. For instance, let them stack with each other, and lets afflictions "bruise" resistance checks for other characters. In that situation i suspect that afflictions would be superior to damage in all circumstances. On the other hand you could also make damage progressive, and damage would be much much more effective than afflictions in incapacitating enemies.)
Belial666 wrote:saint_matthew wrote:Any given ability is only as useful as it turns out to be in any given game.
Assuming one accepts everything else you said, the above statement still isn't true. For two hypothetical abilities A and B, if B can do everything A can plus something else, then it will be more useful than A regardless of the circumstances.
rstehwien wrote:Heard that before. I respectfully disagree in that I expect my 3rd degree afflictions to come up more often than they do, which is on average every 100 rounds for equally matched opponents using base affliction... which is 10 times longer than it takes "Capt Punch-You-In-The-Face" to end the combat.
rstehwien wrote:Just being "Junior Inconvenience-The-Bad-Guy" isn't always satisfying. And yes I know that you can have both damage and affliction, that isn't the point.
rstehwien wrote:But what is the point of having some afflictions if you can never expect to see the 3rd degree affliction?
rstehwien wrote:What is the point of having an encounter ending degree for an affliction at all if it never can end the encounter?
rstehwien wrote:Or what if your affliction has a pretty low probability of actually helping at all unless your entire team waits to act after you and dog-piles the person you target?
rstehwien wrote:Why is it that only some setups of affliction seem worth a damn?
rstehwien wrote:My group played for a while with affliction as written and mostly using the afflictions given in the book (dazzle, snare, mind control, plus a few custom) and found it very unsatisfying.
rstehwien wrote:try playing the game but increase the difficulty by 5 for everything and tell me it plays the same for your group.
saint_matthew wrote:Except it has never been afflictions job to end combat. Afflictions only purpose is to apply negative conditions to a target. That single power not being able to win a combat as quickly as someone doing direct damage is to be expected...
saint_matthew wrote:Unsuprisingly the one that does damage, does more damage then the one that isn't trying to do damage. I didn't really need a chart to determine that.
saint_matthew wrote:But you can expect to see it. In fact a simple linked weaken effect in fact can assure success, even if it is a little slimy, as far as building goes.
RasmusM wrote:Im sure we can both agree, that the actual intent of afflictions is for the designers to know, and us to speculate about.
You can impose some debilitating condition or conditions on a target by making a close attack.
RasmusM wrote:The fact of the matter is that if i use an Affliction 15 vs a Resistance check +10, im just as likely to Incapacitate him as if i used a Damage 15 vs Toughness 10. So i would argue that its as much afflictions purpose to end a combat as it is damage's.
saint_matthew wrote:RasmusM wrote:Im sure we can both agree, that the actual intent of afflictions is for the designers to know, and us to speculate about.
Except we don't need to speculate, its spelled out in the first line of the power listing.
saint_matthew wrote:The way you appear to be trying to use it, is wrong. The point of an affliction is not to insta-win an encounter by aiming for the 3rd tier effect. Its to add negative conditions to a target, to make there defeat easier & more fun.
RasmusM wrote:saint_matthew wrote:Unsuprisingly the one that does damage, does more damage then the one that isn't trying to do damage. I didn't really need a chart to determine that.
Thats basically not true. Progressive afflictions especially with impaired and disabled conditions that affect resistance checks, actually Incapacitates an opponent much faster than a damage effect. Nothing else considered. One can therefore argue that afflictions in some cases cause more damage than damage-effects.
Two is because a GM has an infinite supply and can easily make affliction fail until they feel like letting it happen
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests