Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

[Stochastic]

So I was making a character for a game on their herocentral thing (awesome service, by the by), and I noticed that there is an actual arithmetical flaw in their system: Specifically limitations.

 

I decided to write this cause I see a few of the "BROKEN SYSTEM!!!111!!!" threads from time to time, while browsing this site.

 

Anyways, on page 281 the fifth edition of revised it gives us this formula:

 

Real Cost = Active Cost / (1 + total value of all Limitations)

 

Now, just inherently, considering that limitations are given in negative values, you have a problem - a limitation of a value greater than 0 and equal to or less than point nine repeating is going to increase the Real Cost of the power, rather than decrease it. Observe.

 

Real Cost = 1 / (1 + -1/2) = 2

 

Because (1 + (-1/2)) = 1/2

 

Furthermore, for any limitation greater than 1, you will start to receive points for it.

 

1 / (1 + -2) = -1

 

And then of course the problem of division by zero for a limitation which is exactly 1.

 

Now - I know what you're going to say: Obviously, they mean to take the absolute value of the sum of limitations - but its not so.

 

Examine the text at the beginning of the next page (282), which reads:

 

"The [maximum] value for most Limitations is -0, regardless of how much they're reduced with less restrictive options. The text notes exceptions, such as Charges."

 

I also said [maximum] because the text reads minimum, which is obviously wrong. Regardless, that text makes it clear that Charges ought still be calculated as a Limitation, even if its value is greater than zero, and so, if you were to take an absolute value to bypass negative/positive, you would have the same result on a +1 charge as you would on a -1 charge.

 

Anyways, not particularly important, because as humans we can infer what they mean, but I thought it was funny that the arithmetic is actually broken (as per their description) at this point.

[schir1964]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

The negative/plus sign is simply used to delinate Limitations/Advantages from each other in the text. Therefore, remove the negative signs from the limitation values in your formula for calculating Real Points from Active Points.

 

So basically, you calculate the Active Points as the first discrete step. This involves Advantages.

 

Then you calculate the Real Points as the second discrete step. This involves Limitations.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

The negative/plus sign is simply used to delinate Limitations/Advantages from each other in the text. Therefore, remove the negative signs from the limitation values in your formula for calculating Real Points from Active Points.

 

So basically, you calculate the Active Points as the first discrete step. This involves Advantages.

 

Then you calculate the Real Points as the second discrete step. This involves Limitations.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

That would be taking an absolute value: Did you read why I said, as per their arithmetical description, it doesn't work any way you cut it with that?

 

Like I said, not super-important (not like you can take an advantage to your GM and say "SEE!? I GET POINTS FOR MY 100d6 RKA!"), but the fact that - per their description - they have you modify the denominator with a value that can achieve a zero sum total means that the system is broken. That is, the sum will not always equal an integer.

 

In a more abstract sense, the system, when actually operated as they describe, achieves counter-intuitive results.

 

Again, common sense tells us this is not how it should work - but that doesn't make the numbers add up any differently. Thats just my point.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

It's not "common sense"; it's spelled out explicitly by the rules:

 

"Total the Limitations as positive values, even though they're listed as 'negative' numbers."

 

-- 5ER, p. 281, under "How Limitations Affect A Power's Cost"

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

It's not "common sense"; it's spelled out explicitly by the rules:

 

"Total the Limitations as positive values, even though they're listed as 'negative' numbers."

 

-- 5ER, p. 281, under "How Limitations Affect A Power's Cost"

 

Indeed, but I already addressed that:

 

"The [maximum] value for most Limitations is -0, regardless of how much they're reduced with less restrictive options. The text notes exceptions, such as Charges."

 

on page 282. Thus, Charges is an exception to the rule of Limitations not going above -0, so at +1, when you take |-1| and |+1| you have the same value.

 

I specifically devoted a section of my original post to why taking an absolute value would not work.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Actually when Charges cross over the line it becomes an Advantage and thus the rules for adding Advantages apply.

 

Seriously, take a step back and ponder if there really were an error such as you think would it have gone unnoticed and uncorrected across 5 major editions and several revisions?

[schir1964]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Obviously he wants the text to somehow be in layman terms and be straight forward when in fact the actual process is too complex to be put in layman terms and be straight forward.

 

Yes, the text can be confusing and the process is not easy to understand initially.

 

However, you ignored the points I made about how the formula actually works instead of the erroneous formula you gave in your initial post.

 

There are two discrete steps that must be completed separately in sequence for the formula to work as needed.

 

1. Calculate the Active Points of the power. This means you apply all Advantages in this step (all values that have a Plus Sign and even those Advantages that have a value of Zero).

 

2. Calculate the Real Points of the power. This means you apply all the Limitations in this step (all values that have a Minus Sign and even those Limitations that have a value of Zero).

 

Active Points = Base Value * (1 + (Sum Of Advantages))

Real Points = Active Points / (1 + (|Sum Of Limitations|))

 

That is how it is actually calculated.

 

Whether the text adequately explains this or not is debatable.

 

If you think the text is too unclear, then perhaps you could post a replacement paragraph here to show a better way to explain the calculation. I'd be interested in seeing your fix for the text.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Indeed, but I already addressed that:

 

"The [maximum] value for most Limitations is -0, regardless of how much they're reduced with less restrictive options. The text notes exceptions, such as Charges."

 

on page 282. Thus, Charges is an exception to the rule of Limitations not going above -0, so at +1, when you take |-1| and |+1| you have the same value.

 

I specifically devoted a section of my original post to why taking an absolute value would not work.

right... humorous as it was (actually, I didn't even crack a smile, it wasn't that funny).

 

p281 pretty clearly lets you know what going to affect the price you take the positive (absolute) value of the limitations.

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

right... humorous as it was (actually, I didn't even crack a smile, it wasn't that funny).

 

p281 pretty clearly lets you know what going to affect the price you take the positive (absolute) value of the limitations.

Alright - so, what do you want me to say? "Hey, what can I do? Some people just don't have a sense of humor. Or a grasp of basic arithmetic."

 

I'm not into the whole "gotcha" thing and this wasn't a subject for debate and discussion in the terms of whether or not the numbers add up in a certain way: I have evidenced the three postulates that you need to know to arrive at the conclusion that the system is technically broken at a certain point.

 

The fact that another point in the text claims that Charges works as an Advantage only shows an irreconcilable difference with the postulate determining it to be a Limitation which as an exception to the rule of not being greater than 0.

 

So - yet once more - this isn't an attack on how "fun" the system is, merely that the system as they describe it is broken.

 

As per a proper definition, its very close - in fact, its merely in their definition of the denominator.

 

For every integer x greater than (or equal to) zero there exists a y of equal value, for every integer x less than zero there exists a z.

 

Active Points equals Base Cost times the quantity of one plus the quantity of the series y.

 

Real Cost equals Active Points divided by the quantity of one plus the absolute quantity of the series z.

 

I really didn't intend for it to be this long of a discussion, the original post covers all of the points raised as to why I put the order of operations the way I did, why the taking of an absolute value doesn't work in their system, et cetera...

 

Was just intended to be a humorous change of menu from the normal fare of "SYSTEM BROKEN BECAUSE I CAN BLOW UP THE PLANET FOR 2 POINTS!"

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

plonk

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Touche? hehe.

[Brainstorm]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have a textbook example of a straw man. The system as Stochastic presents it to us is flawed. However, the system as he presents it to us is not the system as it actually exists. There is a clear declaration in black letter law . . . er, um, rule text anyway . . . explaining that those negative symbols are there to indicate that Limitations function as a discount to powers, not to indicate that they are negative numbers. Does someone need to post "Limitation values are not actually negative . . . ever!" in really huge font to convey this point, or is it merely a case of getting enough repetitions to achieve comprehension here?

 

Regards,

Brainstorm

[Manic Typist]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

 

I'm not into the whole "gotcha" thing and this wasn't a subject for debate and discussion in the terms of whether or not the numbers add up in a certain way: I have evidenced the three postulates that you need to know to arrive at the conclusion that the system is technically broken at a certain point.

 

So - yet once more - this isn't an attack on how "fun" the system is, merely that the system as they describe it is broken.

 

 

No offense, but the way that this entire thread comes across is as a "gotcha" against the System.

 

Also, when you start throwing around words like "broken," it's easy for others to see you as attacking the fun of the System itself. I suppose it's like saying "stupid." You might not actually be saying it's bad, just that it's stupid, but, that tends to create a certain impression.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

I'm not smiling.

 

Then again, my funny is broken, but that's been taken up before. I'm really a Giant Robot. I'd go on a tear about this, but it seems that everytime someone corrects you, Stochastic, you simply have yet another way of defending your incorrect point.

 

System isn't broken. Error exists on the other side of the page.

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Ladies and gentlemen' date=' I believe we have a textbook example of a straw man. The system as [b']Stochastic[/b] presents it to us is flawed. However, the system as he presents it to us is not the system as it actually exists. There is a clear declaration in black letter law . . . er, um, rule text anyway . . . explaining that those negative symbols are there to indicate that Limitations function as a discount to powers, not to indicate that they are negative numbers. Does someone need to post "Limitation values are not actually negative . . . ever!" in really huge font to convey this point, or is it merely a case of getting enough repetitions to achieve comprehension here?

 

Regards,

Brainstorm

'm not smiling.

 

Then again, my funny is broken, but that's been taken up before. I'm really a Giant Robot. I'd go on a tear about this, but it seems that everytime someone corrects you, Stochastic, you simply have yet another way of defending your incorrect point.

 

System isn't broken. Error exists on the other side of the page.

You people really aren't reading the whole of the first post are you? I deal with the notion saying that limitations are nonnegative - I deal with it by showing where it says that a limitation that crosses the axes to positive is still a limitation...

 

I ... really don't know whats wrong here. Should I embolden the parts of the original post that deal with the "problems" you are raising?

 

 

No offense, but the way that this entire thread comes across is as a "gotcha" against the System.

 

Also, when you start throwing around words like "broken," it's easy for others to see you as attacking the fun of the System itself. I suppose it's like saying "stupid." You might not actually be saying it's bad, just that it's stupid, but, that tends to create a certain impression.

I don't believe that its stupid, I certainly don't believe it's bad... I like it... It's fun... But that doesn't make the arithmetic I've pointed out any less flawed.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Just to be clear I re-read the post. You said;

 

I also said [maximum] because the text reads minimum' date=' which is obviously wrong. Regardless, that text makes it clear that Charges ought still be calculated as a Limitation, even if its value is greater than zero, and so, if you were to take an absolute value to bypass negative/positive, you would have the same result on a +1 charge as you would on a -1 charge.[/quote']

 

You made an error. The MINIMUM VALUE for a Limitation is, in fact, -0. The negative (as noted prior) represents that it's a lim, even though it's added to 1 and then divided, etc. Minimum Value means that a limitation can never give you points back. You're reading it wrong.

 

Error exists on the other side of the page.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Your arithmetic is fine...

 

It just so happens that a proper interpretation of the English in the book makes all your Mathematical points invalid.

 

And your delivery wasn't that exciting, which really killed the humor right there to be honest. The idea is funny, the delivery not so much.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Right. Minimum isn't obviously wrong, it's obviously correct. Said flaw - i.e., assumed reinterpretation of the text based on your assumption - led you down an incorrect logic chain. So your conclusion is thusly flawed based on assumption you made upstream.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

 

 

I don't believe that its stupid, I certainly don't believe it's bad... I like it... It's fun... But that doesn't make the arithmetic I've pointed out any less flawed.

 

Well, I'm not gonna try to crunch numbers at you, because I do that enough in school.

 

I was just trying to point out why you might be receiving the response that you are.

 

Your original post, to me, sounded like you were daring anyone to disagree with you.

 

Rather than remarking upon a curious facet of Hero mechanics, it felt like you were attacking it with a thin veneer at humor.

 

But, that is my impression, which is in no way a statement of fact.

[Stochastic]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Right. Minimum isn't obviously wrong' date=' it's obviously correct. Said flaw - i.e., assumed reinterpretation of the text based on your assumption - led you down an incorrect logic chain. So your conclusion is thusly flawed based on assumption you made upstream.[/quote']

 

Lets try this.

 

"The [maximum] value for most Limitations is -0, regardless of how much they're reduced with less restrictive options. The text notes exceptions, such as Charges."

 

Alright, so.... Lets say my maximum/minimum comment was completely, totally erroneous, I'll rescind it, put minimum back ... But notice, it doesn't effect the structure of the argument laid forth. We have two possibilities, the same as was in my original post:

 

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, and thus we can achieve noninteger and counterintuitive results.

 

Or

 

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, but we take an absolute value of the limitation before tabulation. In which case, we have a scenario in which -1 Charges has the same effect as +1 Charges.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

I don't understand big words.

 

There's a chart... p284 I think. It details when charges go from being a Limitation (-0) to an Advantage (+1/4). The minimum value of a limitation is -0; it means that the power is always limited. For example, in the AOE group there's an ability called One Hex (Accurate, -0). It means that you can target an individual with a Hex-Based power and they have a DCV of 3 (the hex). However, the power never again affects everyone in the hex - only that target individually. So it's -0 Limitation.

 

I won't pretend to actually grasp your argument, because I don't. You've seen page references, you've heard from myself, ghost-angel and Manic (off the top of my head) who've all explained that this particular thread was neither funny nor correct. I then pointed out that no matter what people say, you insist on being wrong, while insisting that you're right.

 

I'll leave you to it then. And I'll resist the urge to say something truly flame worthy and invoke the wrath of the board, but I will say that perhaps you should consider the idea - just CONSIDER IT - that you're wrong. Really, really wrong.

[Robyn]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

So it's -0 Limitation.

 

I won't pretend to actually grasp your argument, because I don't.

 

I don't even understand the math here. This part had only added to my confusion:

 

Active Points = Base Value * (1 + (Sum Of Advantages))

Real Points = Active Points / (1 + (|Sum Of Limitations|))

 

That is how it is actually calculated.

 

So, my first thought upon reading your (Thia's) post above was "Ooh - paradox!":

 

A negative zero Limitation, if used in multiplication (assume we got there with one full point of Advantages/Limitations apiece), leaves us with the base cost times positive zero (for the Advantages) in Active Points, and the AP cost times negative zero (for the Limitations) in Real Points, therefore the power costs negative zero points, or, it gives us back nothing.

 

It also has an AP of zero, no matter how many dice are in the attack, which makes for a pretty nifty way of sneaking past Active Point caps

 

And, of course, none of this actually works (in the HERO system) as described. This should all be taken as a sign of how far it is possible to go astray when our understanding of the system is even slightly askew.

[Vurbal]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, and thus we can achieve noninteger and counterintuitive results.

 

Or

 

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, but we take an absolute value of the limitation before tabulation. In which case, we have a scenario in which -1 Charges has the same effect as +1 Charges.

What you don't seem to be grasping here is that the description of charges specifically notes that it's an Advantage when you reach that level.

Since powers with Charges don’t cost END to use' date=' a power with a large number of Charges is better than one bought normally — so at a certain point Charges becomes a Power Advantage.[/quote']

In other words what you're talking about isn't a Limitation. If you calculate an Advantage as a Limitation the math will always be broken. It will also always be completely illegal and due to not following the system.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

Well that was just stupid.

 

If you want to point out humorous things in the system talk about a housecat being able to kill a normal person, or a normal person with some martial arts training can destroy a car. Don't look for "broken" things that aren't.

 

You might get a better responce.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

 

And to be clear (notes to the assembled; the following are illustrative only for the sake of argument).

 

Pistol: 1d6 RKA (15 Active Points); Charges (12 rounds in 4 clips, +1/4).

Okay? Good. 15 * 1.25 = 18.75, or 19 Real Points.

 

Different Pistol: 1d6 RKA (15 Active Points); Charges (2, -1 1/2).

Okay? Good. 15 / 2.5 = 6, for 6 Real Points.

 

What don't you understand?