Return of the Emblem: Chat

[Eail]

Kinda dying of pneumonia right now, so there's a possibility I won't be on tonight after school

[GoD]

No, wild griffins aren't really a thing in RotE. Maybe in the sequel. For now, nobody try and mount Griffin(the vasilus), as that would only serve to annoy him.

YES! Phoenix you are genius! Let's do that.

Also I had a strange dream about Hayato, Sardis and Colin dancing to Single Ladies... weird.

Question to Cynthia and/or Phoenix:

About the Mount Slayer, shouldn't that affect Troubadours as well, since they are mounted?

Is it possible for Chelsea to go heal Colin at this point of time, even though she's kinda KO'ed at the moment?

To Ether:

Why you ignore Chelsea?

[Phoenix]

More than four mounted classes ... had to choose and troubs got moved.

If she's not too bad off herself, Chelsea can come over and help, though you guys might want to get the bullet out first before doing any actual healing.

[roymbrog]

Ok, unless I go back and count how many points Robin got in every battle, I cannot figure out for sure how many she has now. The last time her point total was mentioned in the sign up was during her sign up post.

[Mercakete]

Up to you what you want to do, roy, but I'm going rogueslayer. The whole point of Bert getting the poleaxe was countering as many swordies as possible, primarily myrms and thieves since they have so much avo. It's less a stratgey thing and more an IC thing since these are his reasons put into stat terms. (I like letting IC rule all my stats~)

Though I will note that since it is based on IC, it is subject to change so he may at some point switch it out.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Mercakete

[roymbrog]

Wait, can you switch out slayer targets later?

[Mercakete]

As far as I can tell it's the same as selling an old weapon and buying a new one. I've been looking at his IC depending on how future events go and there's a chance at him getting a mountslayer in the future (flavored as just asking Connor to respec his poleaxe), but for now he's sticking with his rogueslayer.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Mercakete

[-Cynthia-]

You can't change your slayer type at any time, you have to go through the reselling/rebuying process

[Ether]

Sorry Disk, I forgot >.>

[Phoenix]

Okay I'm sure you guys remember the talks about below average PCs and such. Well I've been musing a bit and have a solution that could work without nerfing above average units or discouraging effort. Basically the idea is to set a limit on how far negative a PC can go. Whatever the average is at the time, no PC can be more than a certain number of points below it, and if they are, they get bumped up to that limit, minimizing the 'penalty' for underperformance without threatening overperformance. Some input on what the limit should be is more than welcome, but keep in mind, the idea here is to prevent below average units from being too far behind on points to contribute during future battles; the limit shouldn't be anywhere near a mere twenty points. I'm posting this in chat so anyone can comment.

[Toogee]

If I'm reading this right, everyone was dying in that last battle, resulting in some below average (and even negative?) point totals. My idea: after calculating the average points, if a player makes below that average, bump up their points to the average.

Example:

Average: 47 points

Player 1: 20 points

Adjusted Player 1: 47 points

Conclusion: Make the average the limit.

[roymbrog]

I like Toogee's suggestion, but if that's too extreme I still think the total average below limit should be about -40.

[Mercakete]

People only lose points when they get KO'd on PP. I'd say we should set the limit at the price of the most expensive item (150 pts below the average) since usually even low-level PCs can still have an effect in battle, even if they aren't racking in the pts.

The other idea I had was PCs with a total (gear and levels included) below 150pts or so below the average could be eligible for side-quests where they could earn more pts (rather than it just being given to them.) A few lower-level enemies vs PC(s), for instance, would give them the opportunity to still earn their pts, but at against more manageable enemies and without the hard-hitting competition of some of the better-equipped/levelled PCs. I'm not saying those who don't meet the requirements for the "bonus stage" can't participate, of course, but anything they do would have to be outside of stat combat. This way they can participate in the events without taking any pts/performing any actions that would otherwise award pts so that the smaller ones can take what's been provided for them.

[roymbrog]

First, I'm going to explain one reason why I like Toogee's idea, and with it a reason why the current system feels a little weird.

PCs that participate in battle can get less points than PCs that choose to stay out/ aren't there/ that do nothing for the goal or objectives.

All PCs hanging out in the paralogue who did nothing in the fort battle got 47 points. Half the PCs that participated and made contributions towards the objectives that raised that average got less than 47 points. That's not particularly fair towards participants when not acting at all in a battle grants more points than acting once/twice/however many times it takes to surpass the average. However much I dislike Snowy's whining, he has a point that taking Robin out of battles altogether would theoretically raise her point gains. That's something that shouldn't be possible.

Getting KO'd on PP would still be a thing, as even now that -5 points still lowers the total average. Also, it's a deterrent for anyone hoping to gain extra points.

Knowing that points will be gained no matter what as long as the group as a whole performs well gives more incentive to help each other out. If one knows that taking a phase out to let someone else go can't negatively affect their own characters they'll be more willing to do it.

Finally, those who do perform well in a fight and get above the average would, of course, be allowed to keep the extra points. Toogee's suggestion would prevent anyone from falling further behind while still allowing rewards for performance and chances to recoup point losses.

Secondly for the point limit idea, I'm going to give some perspective for how low below average people actually are. No one is near 150 points (except Robin), so that limit doesn't even work to give peace of mind. At the moment that's a whole level and a half behind, actually.

Robin is -109

Aneda -75

Gabbie as far as I can tell is -61

Chelsea is -42

Bert is -33

Valter -23

Faatina -12

I haven't gone through everyone mostly because it's time consuming, but I went with the ones I already knew/ that I guessed were probably behind and put them in order. I still think the limit, if that's the option that's chosen, should be about 40 behind. If not that, then 60 at the most.

EDIT: And for how far ahead some people are aka people we use a lot

Zach +78

Nika +56

Blake +50

Gar +49

Synthia +31

Grant +15

John, Sophia, and Davod would've been on this list except they're kind of gone. We've lost more above average people than below, actually. Not sure what that's about but it's an interesting observation.

Edited April 27, 2013 by roymbrog

[Mercakete]

Ah, I see. You were talking about the battle-by-battle average. I was going off of totalling level and equipment costs and comparing that to the total average (which is presently 644pts.)

Edit: Part of the reason I chose 150pts is because that way we wouldn't be sidequesting very often and because I don't see 40pts as that far behind, especially with prices rising for things PCs would buy. We're getting into the range of people spending 100pts a pop (primarily for levels and good equipment) so that'll suck pts out of the overachievers already and already adds a buff for the smaller characters (since they're not spending as much.)

Edited April 27, 2013 by Mercakete

[roymbrog]

The good equipment they're buying though makes them perform better, which gets them used more, which repeats the cycle we have now. If this wasn't a team based game I'd have no objections, but everyone should be able to contribute and not be left out because of a lack of points for better items/levels.

Also, as highest levels/damage output of the party goes up, the battles become harder. It's just going to get more difficult to let everyone have a chance to post if most characters are being outmatched by a small group of steamrollers.

[GoD]

Holy shit, poor Robin. So basically if we go through with this plan, the ones in the negatives will gain points so that they can stay in the average?

[roymbrog]

I think anyone under the limit would be bumped up to it if we went with the limit suggestion.

[Mercakete]

That's why I proposed a separate way for the weaker members to earn pts, excluding the higher levels/those with better equipment based on pt totals rather than battle averages. I.e., Norbert has spent 20(stimulant(rounding since he resold it at the swap meet after using it once or twice)+20(iron-->steel)+30(leather padding)+20(padding-->half-plate)+30(weapon affinity)+80(large pack)+30(chain mail)+60(rogueslayer) on equipment and 60+70+80+90 on levels. So, his total is 590pts (approx.) Plus the pts he has on him right now (41) making a personal total of about 631 in comparison to the average, which is 644.

He's below average, but not by a concerning amount. And, like I said, as people buy better things, prices spike and so they will have a time in which they won't be improving and so people will naturally catch up (especially since I'm sure the GMs already take into consolidation the weaker people when making stats for battles.) Therefore, things don't become too hard. Plus, if people get too high in level for their targets, they earn less pts. If we add an event or something where only the smaller ones have a chance at earning pts (everyone above a certain threshold won't be allowed to participate in the combat but can participate in the plot of it) then they can still earn pts off of manageable enemies in order to catch up some.

The only major disagreement I see is what this threshold should be. I think it should be higher because of all the systems already in place, but it doesn't really matter that much to me so I will happily relent on that point. I do think, however, that the pts shouldn't just be handed over. This encourages people to still earn their pts and therefore actually make an effort to get them. Plus, it's more fun and interesting. It could easily be flavored as training or something else entirely, such as if some of the group members happen to be away from the main party, like what happens when we go to a town. Everyone doesn't have to be all together for this, either, so long as people have the opportunity to somehow earn the pts themselves.

[roymbrog]

The average is the battle average though, it has nothing to do with how much equipment someone has on them. Bert is at 611 because the 20 points from the original iron weapon are not counted in the battle average in the OP. Any new sign up who sells their basic weapon at the moment will have 664 points, but the average is not 664.

The rest of what you said I'm going to take some time to consider, I just wanted to point that out first. The sidequest idea would be a lot of work for the GMs unless someone else were willing to run the whole thing. It also makes it difficult to make the point average fair for newcomers.

The boosting to average idea doesn't dissuade people from earning points, because if they do it boosts the average and if they earn enough they get extra. I wouldn't say it's handing out points as much as making sure that those who may not have had as much a chance to act aren't better off simply by not acting at all.

Example: Do you think it's fair that Nadya, who was instrumental in getting the swordmaster objective by rezzing Reign and Sinbad, should get less points than the people in the paralogue who didn't participate at all? You could rectify it later with sidequests, sure, but it doesn't seem fair that that should even be able to happen. It's like if a character in FE who you didn't deploy on the map somehow got more EXP than half the people you did.

Edited April 27, 2013 by roymbrog

[Parrhesia]

I agree with roy's suggestion.

it also nets rook a sexy +2 points

oh yeah

[Mercakete]

Let me be clear that I think your idea is quite valid. I'm not saying we shouldn't go with it. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to the GMs and I won't care what happens wither way. I was just trying to clarify the idea I posted since this was opened up to everyone to post ideas. I don't like miscommunicating, so this was all just to clarify, rather than to debate, just to be clear. Actually, I don't see much of a difference between the two plans aside from how the pts are distributed and what triggers the threshold.

The previous explanation was to show that I am taking into consideration equipment as well as levels.

Here, let me give some examples, as far as I understand it:

Idea1: Character x got 33pts and the battle average was 50. Character x gets bumped up to 40 since the minimum distance between the average and the earnings is 10pts.

Idea2: Character x has a total (including levels and equipment) of 600pts. The average is 650pts. Character x is eligible to partake in a side-quest (assuming the rate was set to 50pts.) Character x's rper schedules one with the GMs. The GMs (or someone else) form a mini stat battle (this is just one possibility; stats can be tested in more ways than just combat) with 10 manageable enemies (assuming Character x is the only one needing to be bumped up.) Character x then manages to defeat them, earning those pts and making the earning of them more interesting and explainable than suddenly having more pts (which is counted as money and/or combat expertise.)

Both accomplish the objective of giving a character a better position in future stat battles. The differences I see are that one deals with pts earned battle by battle with a lower threshold (and therefore happens more frequently) and simply gives the pts to the characters who need/want them while the other provides a lot more interactivity less frequently due to a larger threshold that deals with the total pts a character has/has spent rather than simply what was earned.

Both seem viable to me, but once again, it's up to the GM's and I don't particularly care one way or the other. Just wanted to throw an option I thought up out there in case people liked it.

[roymbrog]

I'm not trying to attack your idea, just clarifying mine and pointing out potential issues with others. They're all up for grabs by the GMs. Idea 1 is very similar to Toogee's idea, just with a lower threshold for bumping I guess. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it is an option.

I do have a question about Idea 2 though, what if they don't manage to defeat the enemies? We get by with an unlucky KO here and there in the big battles because we have so many characters, but if only 2 or 3 are participating and enemies get lucky criticals or something there's a very real possibility of them losing. They wouldn't get all the points available if they went down either, possibly necessitating another scheduled sidequest later on.

[Snowy_One]

I don't really approve of the 'separate ways to gain points' thing. Here's the problem/reason. It's either got to be some boring-ass stuff that doesn't affect the plot but can be resolved quickly as I don't think ANYONE wants to derail the plot for six months so Robin can reconcile with Zach and net 100+ points in a pure sidequest. Likewise, I don't think it's really fair to have Robin get 100+ points for doing something stupid like killing a bear.

If you ask me, the point-cutoff should be 40 points. That's a distinct disadvantage and there is still a penalty for 'sucking', but the characters won't fall behind too badly. This also prevents a spiral down to useless (a character ends up behind, which makes them struggle to get kills, which makes them fall even more behind... etc).

Edit: I also highly approve of the idea of all characters having an 'average' point total with no characters behind, only those above. After all, Tia's barding was very useful, but she only came out two points above average. It's not really fair for her to fall behind simply because she's wrapped up in providing a useful service and needs to be careful with how she fights (EG: listens to roy)

Edited April 27, 2013 by Snowy_One

[Mercakete]

I'm not trying to attack your idea, just clarifying mine and pointing out potential issues with others. They're all up for grabs by the GMs. Idea 1 is very similar to Toogee's idea, just with a lower threshold for bumping I guess. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it is an option.

I do have a question about Idea 2 though, what if they don't manage to defeat the enemies? We get by with an unlucky KO here and there in the big battles because we have so many characters, but if only 2 or 3 are participating and enemies get lucky criticals or something there's a very real possibility of them losing. They wouldn't get all the points available if they went down either, possibly necessitating another scheduled sidequest later on.

Actually, Idea1 was the one you were talking about as I understood it. Idea2 was the one I was proposing and you bring up a good point. Though it is true that lucky criticals could happen in stat combat, like I said, there are more ways of earning it than stat combat. So long as it's a challenge for the rper/character (therefore set by a GM or someone other than the rper) it could get around that drawback altogether. (I.e., something similar to the stat games I made up for the festival.) Even then, so long as the enemies are manageable, even criticals and lethals shouldn't be a problem (hence manageable.)

Regarding your concerns, Snowy, I did think a sidequest for Robin could be hunting down some food for the group. Though, seeing as it's a hunt, it would require us to be on the road and could easily be adjusted so there wouldn't be a risk of lost pts. This also encourages characters to not idle so much outside of stat combat. (This particular idea was rolling a 2d6 rolling for hit and skill to see if she lands her mark. There could be a set objective for how many shots can be made, flavored as arrows in the quiver or something just to make it more fun.)