Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

[Opal]

Correct me if I get any of these wrong due to my versionitis flaring up, but, here are how many active points of defense it takes to completely negate 30 Apts of various types of attacks:

 

Normal Attacks: 36 (36 PD or ED)

 

KA: 66 (60 PD, 12r)

Ego attack: 18 (18 ego def)

Drain: 18 (18 POW DEF)

Really Old Flash: 6 (6 Flash Defense)

Old Flash: 12 (12 flash defense)

New Flash (iirc): 36 (36 Flash Defense) (???).

 

NND: it depends, maybe a lot, maybe nothing

AVLD: it depends on the defense, but ~12-18.

 

 

What this tells me: Normal attacks stack up pretty well against most others, presumably because /everybody/ can make and defend against normal attacks. Most other attacks are cheaper to stop completely, presumably because many characters don't have them and/or don't have any defense against them at all. Another factor might be number of dice - an attack that rolls many dice is less variable, so defenses that stop a little more than it's average will stop it the majority of the time.

 

The anomallies are KA, Really Old Flash, and New Flash. Really Old Flash is too cheap to stop completely, even for a power that some characters have no defense against. KA and New Flash are too expensive to stop for attacks that some characters have no defense against at all - KA absurdly so.

 

 

 

Anyone else have any insights into the high cost of stopping normal attacks, FRED Flash attacks, and the absurdly high cost of stopping KAs?

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

Versionitis on the Flash.... Flash still counts BODY, doesn't it?

[Opal]

I thought flash was changed to counting pips, and blinding you for segments instead of phases. Or was that proposed but not actually done?

 

I'd certainly be glad to hear that it's still BOD.

 

That still leaves KA as a giant anomally, though...

[Bloodstone]

Flash - Count Normal Damage BODY and that's the number of Segments the sense is Flashed, so 12 flash defense would stop it completely.

 

Of course the chances of rolling all 6's on 6 dice is 1.97%, so you are pretty safe with less than max defenses...

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

Killing Attack can be stopped with 48 Normal and 12 Resistant DEF. 48 + 18 = 66, you're right. Or with Force Field, 48 + 12 = 60.

[Opal]

OK, so New Flash was not as bad as I thought - in fact, it's a little weaker than Old Flash (except vs SPD 12 characters) - and is on the low side in terms of how many Apts it takes to stop comopletely. Cool.

 

 

So, any other ideas about why most attacks take arround half the Apts in the attack to stop completely (12-18 vs 30 Apts), but normal attacks take slighly more (36 vs 30) and KAs take at least twice as much (60-66 vs 30)?

 

Normal attacks I think I can explain, sorta: anyone can make a normal attack, and everyone has at least some defense against them. That's not true of any of the others.

[Outsider]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

Move to a fixed 3* Stun mult for KAs, and it drops to 42.

 

Use a fixed 2.5* Stun mult for KAs (which is closer to the 2.667 average on 1d6-1 anyway) and it is 36, just like for a Normal Attack.

 

 

Or use a variant where Killing attacks that do BODY through a target's resistant defense gets a 3*SM, while ones that dont get only a 2*SM. Then it takes 30 points to fully stop a 30 point KA.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

For 5 points you are immune to 1DC normal damage from a single sfx,

+1/2 and you are immune to resistant damage too,

+1/2 and it is a related group of sfx,

+1 and it is everything BUT a single sfx.

 

Smells about right.

 

So to be immune to 6d6 of normal damage would cost 30 points, or up to 72 to be immune to 6DC damage from any source, except one.

[Opal]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

Thanks for the suggestions.

 

I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who wants to defend the 36 Apt cost of fully defending against 30 Apts of normal attack, or (and good luck with this one) the 66 Apt cost of fully defending against 30 Apts of killing - when fully defending against 30Apts of any other attack is more in the range of 12-18.

[sbarron]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who wants to defend the 36 Apt cost of fully defending against 30 Apts of normal attack' date=' or (and good luck with this one) the 66 Apt cost of fully defending against 30 Apts of killing - when fully defending against 30Apts of any other attack is more in the range of 12-18.[/quote']Defend it how? From what?

 

What does setting the standard at total defense against an attack show you? What is your analysis trying to get at?

 

Without know what you're after, I'll take a stab it explaining it. KAs are the most dangerous, so they cost the most to defend against. EBs are next. However, as an added benefit to buying defense against these attacks, the defense against KA and EB almost totally overlap (assuming you have some rDef). So while you're spending more points to defend against EB and KAs than you are for the specialty attacks, you're also defending against the 2 most common forms of attack with only 1 defense.

 

Flashes, Drains, and Ego attacks are specialty attacks. Most characters won't have defenses against these, so these attacks cost more (since they'll likely be more effective) and they don't cost much to defend against (since these attacks aren't that common).

 

It may be of importance to note that the 36 points to defend against EB (which for most characters will also work against both EBs and KAs), is exactly twice as many points as the 18 you spend to defend against the specialty attacks. Defending against 2 types of attacks costs twice as much?

 

To me, a more meaniful measure of cost of defense would be to defend against the damage averages, rather than the extremes. Especially considering the very small chance of hitting the extremes with EBs and KAs.

[Opal]

Re: Apt cost of defesnses vs attacks

 

KAs are the most dangerous' date=' so they cost the most to defend against.[/quote']That's prettymuch a tautology, of course the attack that's hardest to defend against will be the most dangerous.

 

the defense against KA and EB almost totally overlap (assuming you have some rDef). So while you're spending more points to defend against EB and KAs than you are for the specialty attacks, you're also defending against the 2 most common forms of attack with only 1 defense.

That's a good insight. If you pay to be immune to KA, you're also quite immune to EB, as well. If you're already immune to 30 apts of EB, it's only another 30 (24 DEF, 12 resistant), to be immune to KA, as well.

 

But, if you're immune to EB (36 normal defense), you're still entirely vulnerable to EB. That is, you can't be immune to KA without also being immune to EB. While you can be immune to EB without being immune to KA.

 

Of course, Mental Defense defends against more than Ego Attack (Mind Control, Mental Illusions, Mind Scan, etc); and Power Defense defends against more than just Drains (Transfers & Supress). And, either of those, or even Flash Defense or Resistant Defense could be the defense of an AVLD or NND.

 

Normal physical attacks /are/ extraordinarily common, regardless of genre or setting, since anyone with a STR score can launch one. Similarly, anyone with a STR or CON of 3+ has at least some defense against them. Your normal attack is never going to do full damage to anyone, as everyone has the defense.

 

Flashes, Drains, and Ego attacks are specialty attacks. Most characters won't have defenses against these, so these attacks cost more and they don't cost much to defend against. That part does make some sense. But, how common they are is also a campaign issue, yet the cost isn't generally adjusted.

 

It may be of importance to note that the 36 points to defend against EB (which for most characters will also work against both EBs and KAs), is exactly twice as many points as the 18 you spend to defend against the specialty attacks. Defending against 2 types of attacks costs twice as much?

The 36 points you spend to defend yourself completely from a normal attack don't actually defend you against a KA at all. But, they do make it cheaper to defend yourself from a KA, in that you'll only have to add 12 resistant defense (18 points!) and 12 more normal defense (12 points ) to do so.

 

To me, a more meaniful measure of cost of defense would be to defend against the damage averages, rather than the extremes. Especially considering the very small chance of hitting the extremes with EBs and KAs.

This is a good point. It would be helpful to look at defending against the likely range of results.

 

For instance, if you wanted to stop 50% of 30 Apt normal attacks, you'd need 21 Apts. To stop 50% of Ego attacks, you'd need 10. To stop 50% of KAs you'd need 21 (15, 12 resistant). On the averages that's looking pretty good.

 

But, to stop 75% of the same attacks you'd need 23 for normal, 12 for ego, 33 (27, 12 resistant) for the KA. To stop 90%, it'd be 26, 14, and 42 (36, 12 resistant) respectively.

 

Because of the KA dice mechanic, the total delivered is /much/ more random than for any other kind of attack.

 

Interestingly, if KAs did BOD only (or STN = BOD), 30 Apts of KA would be stopped by the same 18 Apts of defense as any other specialty attack. As it stands, that 18 Apts of defense stops the KA about 45% of the time.

 

Here's the % Chance of rolling a given amount of STN with a 2d KA, with the cumulative chance of rolling that much or less, sorted in STN order.

 

 
KA  %     
STN Chance Cumulative
2    0.93%    0.93%
3    1.85%    2.78%
4    3.24%    6.02%
5    3.70%    9.72%
6    6.02%   15.74%
7    5.56%   21.30%
8    6.48%   27.78%
9    4.63%   32.41%
10   5.09%   37.50%
11   1.85%   39.35%
12   5.56%   44.91%
14   2.78%   47.69%
15   2.78%   50.46%
16   3.70%   54.17%
18   4.17%   58.33%
20   4.63%   62.96%
21   2.78%   65.74%
22   0.93%   66.67%
24   5.09%   71.76%
25   1.85%   73.61%
27   1.85%   75.46%
28   2.78%   78.24%
30   3.70%   81.94%
32   2.31%   84.26%
33   0.93%   85.19%
35   2.78%   87.96%
36   2.31%   90.28%
40   3.70%   93.98%
44   0.93%   94.91%
45   1.85%   96.76%
48   0.46%   97.22%
50   1.39%   98.61%
55   0.93%   99.54%
60   0.46%  100.00%

 

One thing that's obvious is that it's not much like a normal distribution. With a normal attack, which does give you a normal distiribution, you're most likely to roll the average, and the chance of rolling more or less decreases smoothly. With the KA it's rather more choppy, with some numbers impossible to roll (17 or 19 for instance), and some very high numbers just as likely as some near the average - you're as likely to roll 40 (slightly less than 22 below average) as 16 (a little more than 2 below average).