Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 19, 2016 0:02:23 GMT
1. How do you feel about your feat?
2. What do you think of feats in general?
3. What are your thoughts on the seek/search mechanic? How could it be improved?
4. Captains, was it hard to make summaries with all of the feats making weird exceptions?
5. Any other comments/suggestions?
While the game was much higher scoring, the rolls were IMPROBABLY high. Booker's AVERAGE roll+bonus over his last 17 rolls is 19. So keep that in mind before you all say, "Keeping doesn't do anything."
I am considering making "On Fire" a Feat instead of a general rule.
It is hard for Keepers to select the correct hoop, but as I said in my announcement it's important to pay attention to what the opposing chasers are doing. The Chimeras kept defending the same hoops that were never shot on.
1. I felt to really use Adrenaline for all its worth, had to use it each turn, aiming for On Fire for another turn without penalties. Still have to do some math in this one, but it was a fun option to try out.
2. I feel like the feats add to the choice and strategy element. Some had inherent risks if you used them (Adrenaline, Cheater), others provided a less flashy but consistent bonus (Lightning Reflexs, Speedy to a lesser extent), others were reliant on luck which just amplified excellent results or created insurance (Rebound, Breakaway) and others gave more options (Dodge, Protego).
3.I like how it's working now, makes seeking a deliberate pursuit. I have an idea for a third action or a feat to help closer the seeking gap like how this game happened.
Follow the Leader: If the opposing Seeker has a lower Seek DC than you, make a Search action at an Easy DC to attempt to follow his/her movements. Success lowers your Seek DC by 2.
This could keep Seeking competitive and a more enticing goal.
4. I found the talents easy to accommodate, even allowed for more flavorful summary in some cases (Cheating was fun to describe).
5. I had made the suggestion to leave the 30 point hoop alone, and we followed through. Due to Booker's insane rolls, raising the difficulty of the hoop would have blocked... 2 shots. The other 7 were 20 or above, and with On Fire active, no beating could have lowered those. You're right though, that was insanely improbable.
I've already thrown out my idea for an alternative On Fire mechanic, change it from rewarding high achievement with a powerful buff to a more momentum based buff that can be obtained through more strategies beyond "aim high".
Besides that, the last period felt close, looking forward to Game 3.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 19, 2016 1:43:28 GMT
Once we find an ideal number of points to distribute into skills, would you rather play an RPG where you start underpowered and level up to that ideal skill level, OR always get to play at the more balanced skill level at the cost of losing that feeling of skill progression?
I like the idea of some form of progression, either through picking up feats as we go or increasing our skill values. The trick with low starting skills is it feels a lot more based on luck than choice, even if a single bonus or penalty amounts to as little as 5%. Random elements are always going to be a factor in this game, but feeling like our choices are meaningful is important.
I really did enjoy the skill progression from the last Hunger Games RP, but it'd be nice to give opportunities to advance skills without it being reliant on post count alone. Maybe we give an MVP award at the end of a game, allowing a player a free +1 to one of their skills. Feats can be awarded for particularly creative or unexpected choice of actions, maybe only unlocking if you achieve hidden requirements during a game.
I'd be willing to try a fresh set of stats where we have stats similar to Hunger Games (+2, +1, +0, -1) but we start with a feat of our choice.
Also, are we planning to test out having more than one feat? I can think of some particularly nice combos to be had with the current set...
Post by Quinn Starling on Feb 19, 2016 4:06:12 GMT
1. Feat: Mine should have been awesome...but unfortunately my luck was just too awful Lol I should have searched up until the last round, but meh
2. feats in general: I like the variety we have though. It gives us lots of options for strategy. I think stacking feats could get too complicated, especially for summaries.
3. seek/search mechanic: With my luck at searching, I felt like it wasn't worth it to keep going or to seek at the end. Maybe something like "follow the leader" or lowered DCs for the snitch overall could help? Maybe it could be like keeping, with the first search succeeds at 9 DC, the next successful search at 13 DC, etc.
4. Summaries: I loved writing summaries and tallying stats, etc. I think having more than 1 feat would suck for that, though.
5. Any other comments/suggestions? I like having ON FIRE as a perk to work up to. I think it could be from 3 (or maybe 5?) consecutive successful rolls, like we mentioned before, and therefore be a temporary perk. It might also make people think twice before throwing a bunch of super hard DC rolls.
I think skill progression should start at just your +2 for your position and grow to max of +4 in any one area with opportunities to increase every skill up to +4 eventually.
1. How do you feel about your feat? Dodge feels in a good place with the risk/reward. Takes an action to become invincible for a turn and possibly waste their actions.
2. What do you think of feats in general? They add a good mix of character and strategy. I'd like to see them buffed more with a focus on teamplay and synergy, but reduced in the amount of times it can be used.
3. What are your thoughts on the seek/search mechanic? How could it be improved? Catching the snitch to end the game makes it feel random for how long the game goes. (Imagine if Booker was the Seeker!) It's a negative in my book, because we can't plan ahead as certainly and it forces Seekers to risk a lot of actions toward a goal that only provides 35 points. Perhaps guarantee each game is 4 quarters, and the seeker with the highest cumulative Seek rolls throughout the game catches it for the extra points? Sort of a game of Chicken with the other Seeker.
Any other comments/suggestions?
Knowing the opposing team's skill-point layout ahead of time makes it easier to plan out strategies. This has pros and cons, and also depends on whether or not we can change them between matches during the real games.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 21, 2016 23:34:01 GMT
For the next test I am highly considering having just 2 options for each position, a low risk and a high risk option. I'll have to figure out what numbers to use. Maybe something like 11 and 16. There would only be a 20 pt hoop and a 30 pt hoop, making the choice for keepers easier, and effectively reducing the reward for chasers playing high risk. Right now there is little incentive for keepers to try defending the 30 hoop (hard DC), which gives more incentive for chasers to shoot for the 30 because the other hoops are likely to also be raised to Hard DC. So, maybe a successful keep should automatically block one shot at that hoop, rather than raising the hoop DC. Then Beaters would deal just 1 or 2 damage. And I think the new seeking rule may need another test, but the DC will possibly start at a lower number.
I like the feats and I think they could add a lot of variety and choice to the game that could make up for the reduction in DC options. I'll do some tests on my end before officially changing any rules.
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 23, 2016 18:02:08 GMT
Another way to reduce randomness is to use two dice added together. For example, if we used 2d10 or 2d6 then numbers toward the middle of the spectrum become more common than the extreme highs and lows. Would you guys prefer something like this?
Post by Quinn Starling on Feb 23, 2016 19:25:49 GMT
My main concern with using 2 dice is that it'd mean multiple posts per action, right? Because currently, we can't put more than one die roll into a single post. Or, is there a way you can override that?
I'd say ask Walltur about the benefits of adding two dice, and likelihood of still rolling extreme highs (9/10 or 5/6) twice compared to rolling a 19/20 on a single die. To me, it DOES sound like it'd be more fair using two, but I trust him to actually run the numbers if he has time...
(He has midterms this week I think though, so no rush Walltur. Go study & shit)
I had time to work this out on the train, thanks to a web tool provided by Vester
What's interesting with rolling 2d10 instead of 1d20, the odds of rolling medium values are much higher than either of the extremes. This creates a more normalized curve as far as results go. In fact, rolling an 11 in this set up is the most likely outcome out of all individual outcomes when you have no skill bonuses or penalties (this is a shout out to Quinn's comment that an 11 seems high for an Easy DC in the updated rules post).
This is due to the number of combinations possible to obtain each number, to compare: New range: 2-20
Probability of rolling 2: 0.01 (Roll 1 and 1) 1% Probability of rolling 3: 0.02 (Roll 1 and 2 OR 2 and 1) 2% ... Probability of rolling 11: 0.1 (Roll 1 and 10, 2 and 9, 3 and 8, 4 and 7, 5 and 6... 10 and 1) 10% ... Probability of rolling 20: 0.01 (Roll 10 and 10) 1%
That's all well and good, Walltur, but what are my chances of beating a certain DC?
Please save your questions for the end, but this one works as a good transition To figure that out, all you have to do is add up all the probabilities of your target number and above, since any number greater than the target is considered as a success in reaching that number.
Here are the new DC's as listed in Vester's updated rules page, along with their probabilities of rolling:
Easy = 11 Probability: 55% Medium = 14Probability: 28% Hard = 16Probability: 15% Very Hard = 18Probability: 6%Please Note that there are no longer any Actions at Very Hard DC
These are the chances with no bonuses or penalties. As a bonus, here's what your chances look like when you have your maximum bonus of +3:
Easy = 11 Probability: 79% Medium = 14 Probability: 55% Hard = 16 Probability: 36% Very Hard = 18 Probability: 21%
I had begun to make these calculations by hand initially, but here's the great tool that Vester found to really speed things up: anydice.com/
Let me know if you have any questions or comments, I'd be happy to discuss. (After studying, of course. Thank you Quinn)
Post by Vester Lombard on Feb 24, 2016 15:15:26 GMT
While I like that the rolls will tend to be more average, the strangest part about using a 2d10 system is that a skill bonus gives you a higher statistical boost for DC's closer to the middle of the spectrum (a roll of 11), and less of a bonus toward the extremes. A +1 skill can give you a boost as large as 10% and as little as 1%. Whereas on a 1d20 system a +1 skill bonus always boosts your odds by 5%.
I'm not really sure how this will affect the game. I think 2 dice systems are not really meant to have a skill bonus type mechanic for this reason.
What I find interesting though is that the benefit a specific result gains from a single +1 bonus is a normalized function in itself. You're right that with a +1 bonus, the probability of achieving an 11+ goes up by 9% while a 16+ only goes up by 6%. However, with an additional +1 is given (+2 total), the increase to 11+ actually drops to 8% while 16+ goes up to 7%.
Based on this pattern, the greatest change in chances of succeeding at rolling a 16+ occurs as you raise the bonus from +4 to +5, giving a 10% increase while an 11+ only receives a 5% increase.
You can also consider the impact of injury penalties on the probability of achieving a new number. Going from +0 bonus to -1 penalty results in a 10% decrease in success for rolling 11+ while the chances of rolling a 16+ is only decreased by 5%.
So using this range of effects when using penalties and bonuses, you can determine an ideal bonus limit and injury penalty limit. Changing the target DC's will also have an effect, so there's plenty to mess around with.
Here's another way of laying out what was posted above:
+0 DC 11: 55% DC 16: 28%
+1 DC 11: 64% (+9%) DC 16: 34% (+6%)
Based on these DC levels, a +1 bonus increases your chance with both Normal and Hard DC's, but not equally. What's interesting is that these differences change over time, and even balance out eventually.
Notice how with the Normal action, the advantage gained for additional +1 bonuses decreases overtime. On the other hand, Hard actions receive a greater percentage increase over time, peaking at 10% at +5. After that, it begins to decline just like the Normal action already has.
As for injury penalties, we just go in the reverse direction to calculate how much you would lose between the two action choices.
Penalty: +0 -1 -2 -3
DC 11: 55% 45% 36% 28% -10% -9% -8%
DC 16: 15% 10% 6% 3% -5% -4% -3%
That's just the way the distribution works, the Normal action is going to take more reductions than the Hard action, simply because the Hard action is already so low. At 3 IP, you have the choice between a 28% chance at a Normal success of a 3% chance at Hard success. I think this will give injury penalties more weight than the 1d20 model:
Walltur: Mmk, I can see that now
Mar 17, 2016 15:19:37 GMT
Vester Lombard: Beating a seeker in the 4th is pretty huge. Each IP is essentially erasing the effect of one of their successful searches.
Mar 17, 2016 16:28:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: Yeah, I would have hit Ginger more if I thought she'd rest up or if you'd heal her. But I figured that you guys would maybe leave her at 2 since that was her max, especially since we decided to stay inujurred, too Lol
Mar 17, 2016 16:36:34 GMT
Quinn Starling: We planned back between periods 2-3 to consider staying injured if we got to -3 again, to waste any coming beatings. If you aim for low DCs, have enough skill to make up for the IP, AND get lucky, it's sometimes worth it to keep the damage & keep rolling
Mar 17, 2016 17:34:53 GMT
Vester Lombard: I think in the 2nd period you definitely have to rest. 3rd period, maybe, pending your team strategy. 4th period, probably not.
Mar 17, 2016 21:14:43 GMT
Sprye Tatel: In the interest of not adding a new post each day to the Space Debate threads, would we be interested in sharing ideas via Google Docs? tinyurl.com/zlk8sb3
Mar 21, 2016 5:01:20 GMT
Quinn Starling: I'm in favor of death penalty for illegal pretty floral bonnets. I think that needs to be an argument that happens Lol
Mar 21, 2016 13:54:41 GMT
Walltur: Pro, but under the argument that all viewers of the bonnet be executed, rather than the wearer. Deadly illegal bonnets
Mar 22, 2016 4:16:02 GMT
Quinn Starling: Depends on how pretty. We'd need a numerical rating scale, to start. Any bonnet rated 6 or over (by 2/3 vote of galactic council) is determined "pretty" and a single flower may be defined as "floral." Any fixture worn upon the head may serve as "bonnet."
Mar 22, 2016 15:54:13 GMT
Quinn Starling: (that's on a scale of 1-10) And I'd be against death penalty for illegal ones (unregistered, obtained illegally, etc.) Jail sentencing and community work are appropriate, but not death penalty. Too extreme.
Mar 22, 2016 15:56:18 GMT
Vester Lombard: While I am against the death penalty for pretty floral bonnets, I do think that all people who have encountered the bonnet should have their brains slightly melted. I think this would both save lives and prevent any risk of spreading that fashion
Mar 22, 2016 16:25:34 GMT
Sprye Tatel: Again with the slightly-melting brains proposal? Seems very convenient for the Muppet-race; who can re-grow/stuff brain cells! Whose pocket are you in? Who is pulling your strings!?
Mar 22, 2016 17:16:41 GMT
Sprye Tatel: I say that the punishment should fit the crime: The penalty for Pretty Floral Bonnet's (PFB's) should be death by PFB!
Mar 22, 2016 17:19:46 GMT
Quinn Starling: I have found my people. This is where I belong <3
Mar 22, 2016 23:08:03 GMT
Walltur: Any games coming down the pipe? Online practice game of Cornucopia?
Apr 6, 2016 15:19:22 GMT
Vester Lombard: If you guys want we could try doing some online Galactic Debate. It would lose a bit of the spontaneous improv element when played on the forum, but maybe it could at least help figure out which cards are fun or boring.
Apr 11, 2016 16:36:36 GMT
Quinn Starling: We could schedule a "live" session and either skype or have the speaker type up their response within a certain time frame. So, speaker says they're free at 9pm. At 8:55 they're given their topic, then they have from 9:00-9:05 to type up their platform...?
Apr 11, 2016 17:53:36 GMT