Elemental Controls

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

So you would be ok with building Cap America with NCM vs a Cap America without NCM to show the undercosting of str and dex?

NCM is sort of suggested for heroic level play isn't it? I wouldn't be ok with it in the since that Cap doesn't have NCM. There isn't anything Normal about Cap.

 

And you're getting tricky here. I'm talking about showing that Bricks don't have some automatically overwhelming advantage over Blasters or Martial Artists or vice versa.

 

What you are trying to do is work off of one character concept and make me prove that all (or at least two) methods of design for one character concept are equal. That's not the same thing at all. If you are trying to argue that there are cost breaks that encourage one type of construction over another with a character concept you have no argument from me - but that's not what it looked like the topic of this one was about.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

NCM is sort of suggested for heroic level play isn't it? I wouldn't be ok with it in the since that Cap doesn't have NCM. There isn't anything Normal about Cap.

 

And you're getting tricky here. I'm talking about showing that Bricks don't have some automatically overwhelming advantage over Blasters or Martial Artists or vice versa.

 

What you are trying to do is work off of one character concept and make me prove that all (or at least two) methods of design for one character concept are equal. That's not the same thing at all. If you are trying to argue that there are cost breaks that encourage one type of construction over another with a character concept you have no argument from me - but that's not what it looked like the topic of this one was about.

 

I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

 

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study.

[Stone]

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, basic blasters would be screwed without EC's. IME though, almost nobody plays a basic blaster.

 

 

Doesn't this blow your arguement? You admit that a character concept would be greatly hampered, but justify it by saying almost no one plays that type of character. In my group, rarely does a MA appear. Personally I disagree with some of the MA abilities. To me MA's can be just as unbalancing (if not more) as any character type in the game.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

 

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study.

I just wanted to make a point. That someone could build a perfectly good archetype on the same amount of points to challenge any other archetype (and I'm not talking about a character that is specifically built just to challenge the other), not engage in a "blind" game to show who the better(?) character designer is. I'm too busy for that. It's a neat idea though.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

I just wanted to make a point. That someone could build a perfectly good archetype on the same amount of points to challenge any other archetype (and I'm not talking about a character that is specifically built just to challenge the other), not engage in a "blind" game to show who the better(?) character designer is. I'm too busy for that. It's a neat idea though.

 

Yeah, I figured as much, and I agree it's not about the better designer. FWIW, I agree with you on this one AgentX.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Yeah, I figured as much, and I agree it's not about the better designer. FWIW, I agree with you on this one AgentX.

Cool!

[Zed-F]

Actually I'm pretty sure Gary is the only one that thinks ECs are inherenhly unbalanced. For most of the rest of us, it's a matter of the GM enforcing rules on how related the powers have to be to a common special effect, etc.

 

You can make a balanced or unbalanced character regardless of whether you use STR/MA, ECs, or Multipowers. There's lots of ways to shave points here and there by taking advantage of efficient power constructs.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Stone

Doesn't this blow your arguement? You admit that a character concept would be greatly hampered, but justify it by saying almost no one plays that type of character. In my group, rarely does a MA appear. Personally I disagree with some of the MA abilities. To me MA's can be just as unbalancing (if not more) as any character type in the game.

 

A basic blaster is a pretty inefficient and seldom seen design anyway. I find it uninteresting, just like I would find a character who spends 200 pts on Rec to be an uninteresting and inefficient design.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Zed-F

Actually I'm pretty sure Gary is the only one that thinks ECs are inherenhly unbalanced. For most of the rest of us, it's a matter of the GM enforcing rules on how related the powers have to be to a common special effect, etc.

 

You can make a balanced or unbalanced character regardless of whether you use STR/MA, ECs, or Multipowers. There's lots of ways to shave points here and there by taking advantage of efficient power constructs.

 

I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

I'd like to see you guys build a Brick and a Martial Artist (or Blaster) with 350 points with all standard HERO rules, no optional rules, but with "stop" powers. Let someone on the board be the arbiter of any funkiness in the stop powers (whoever you both agree on). Basically you could agree on a time to post at, that way there'd be no advantage in seeing the other guy ahead of time. Ideally PBEM 3 combats, whoever wins 2 is the winner. Then repeat for a contest of best out of 7 rounds total - that way if one of you happens to come out of the gate with a better design, you should learn enough about each other's designs to make it more competitive each round. 7 rounds (one Brick vs a Martial Artist or one Brick vs a Blaster each time) should give enough opportunity to see if there's a big difference. A 4-3 split should certainly indicate there's not a big difference.

 

However, that's an awful lot of work...still, it would be a good study.

 

Wouldn't really work. Many characters could be optimized to deal with one single opponent. A better test would be a matched pair of characters both run through a series of different campaigns and adventures to see how well they deal with all situations. Needless to say, this is pretty impractical. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all.

 

There's a good reason for people to think that:

 

"Basically, Elemental Controls provide a cost savings to a character in exchange for (1) buying related Powers which fit his conception well and (2) accepting certain restrictions on those Powers."

 

#1 pretty much says it. #2 though does mean something in my view. I believe you don't see it that way though (re #2) - which pretty much leaves only #1!

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

I think the problem is that people view EC's as a "reward" for good character conception. However, good character conception should be a prerequisite to play in the campaign to begin with. If you have a poor character conception, you shouldn't be allowed into the campaign at all.

I always viewed ECs as a cost-savings for a unifying theme. A unifying theme may not make for a good character concept. I've had some pretty good character concepts that were not over powerful but there was no way to build them on the points allowed, with ECs, Mps, whatever.

 

And this is a game - "rewarding" people isn't really what it is all about. If my cousin, the guy who has no clue what he is doing, shows up and wants to play, I'm not going to punish him for being green and not "getting" the genre. I'll nudge him here and there, let him run the mixed up marvel, and let him grow into the game.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Gary

Wouldn't really work. Many characters could be optimized to deal with one single opponent. A better test would be a matched pair of characters both run through a series of different campaigns and adventures to see how well they deal with all situations. Needless to say, this is pretty impractical. Still, I'm intrigued by the idea.

Me too.

[Gary]

Originally posted by zornwil

There's a good reason for people to think that:

 

"Basically, Elemental Controls provide a cost savings to a character in exchange for (1) buying related Powers which fit his conception well and (2) accepting certain restrictions on those Powers."

 

#1 pretty much says it. #2 though does mean something in my view. I believe you don't see it that way though (re #2) - which pretty much leaves only #1!

 

Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.

 

The problem with that is scalability - having 3 powers linked may be less limiting than 6 powers linked, or more accurately 100 AP linked is worth less than 200 AP linked (just throwing out numbers), although at some point it's a VPP masquerading as an EC and the reverse happens, 300 AP linked is just a benefit basically. However, scalability is a problem with ECs in general. One option for ECs is to make the control cost the max AP of any power in the EC, and costs are reduced for each slot by 1/2 or 2/5 or "flavor to taste". If you want a power to have greater AP than the EC allows, you have to link it to an outside power that also has to meet all EC requirements, sort of like MP, with no "linked" limitation. Or some-such thing. It still gets cost effective as you get too many EC slots, BUT I would argue no worse than MPs.

 

However, at the end of the day, I don't have a problem with #1 as in the quote above. I think all of the frameworks reward characters for tighter concepts as much as they do grant points for limitation. An MP can be (not saying it is innately) way more abusive than an EC, particularly with ultra slots. And so long as it's not abused, ECs seem to work cost-wise okay to me.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by

Agent X

And this is a game - "rewarding" people isn't really what it is all about. If my cousin, the guy who has no clue what he is doing, shows up and wants to play, I'm not going to punish him for being green and not "getting" the genre. I'll nudge him here and there, let him run the mixed up marvel, and let him grow into the game.

I have had plenty of brand new players who came up with amazing character concepts. This may in part be because they don't know the system, and haven't been influenced by previous roleplaying stereotypes. Rewarding good concepts isn't against the new guy. Now, what is true is that the new guy probably won't know about the mechanics, like Frameworks. That's why you help them build their characters (at least a bit), and suggest things like Elemental Controls to them (and you can suggest them only when you feel they are merited, instead of having to turn down the point-mongering of an experienced power-gamer).

 

By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job.

 

Originally posted by Gary

Yeah, (1) is pretty stupid. As for (2), I believe instead of a framework, it should be an explicit -1/4 or -1/2 limitation on a group of related powers to simulate the drain one drain all factor.

Well cool. I think we have just learned that you may never allow Elemental Controls when you GM. Whatever. I don't think you are convincing anyone else not to use them. Certainly not me. You will probably also be limiting yourself rather harshly if you decide not to play in a campaign run by a GM who likes ECs.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

Or if you like to use published material. After all, if you don't allow EC's to yur players, it's only fair that the NPC's also lose these point breaks and get geared down to compensate.

 

Sure, you could just give the opponents enough bonus xp to cover it, but that's hardly equitable, is it?

[zornwil]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

(snipped) By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job.

(snipped)

 

Great point.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by prestidigitator

I have had plenty of brand new players who came up with amazing character concepts. This may in part be because they don't know the system, and haven't been influenced by previous roleplaying stereotypes. Rewarding good concepts isn't against the new guy. Now, what is true is that the new guy probably won't know about the mechanics, like Frameworks. That's why you help them build their characters (at least a bit), and suggest things like Elemental Controls to them (and you can suggest them only when you feel they are merited, instead of having to turn down the point-mongering of an experienced power-gamer).

 

By the way, I think this argument is similar to: "I don't give experience for good roleplaying. After all, players who are new to the game might have trouble getting into character, so it wouldn't be fair." Bull. Maybe you reward the new players a little quicker for a bright idea or good roleplaying when they have been having difficulty in this area, but it is no reason to discourage the good, experienced, well intentioned roleplayers you have from keeping up the good job.

How did you get here from there? Seriously, could you possibly misrepresent what I said more? You might want to read the whole statement in context next time.

 

What I was saying is that the game isn't about "rewarding" some people. It's about fun.

 

I don't think I made an argument similar to anything of the kind. I think you assume a lot from a little.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by zornwil

Great point.

Except he took my comment completely out of context.

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Agent X

What I was saying is that the game isn't about "rewarding" some people. It's about fun.

...and one of the fun things for a player is to be rewarded for a job well done. Roleplaying in itself can be great, but what player doesn't want to develop his/her character, both story-wise and with experience?

 

Additionally, you should increase the likelihood that all players will have fun by rewarding things which tend to facilitate this: good roleplaying, fun and innovative ideas, creative and appropriate characters, contribution to storylines, making a good environment for other players by helping them out and not trying to "cheat the system," etc.

 

You claim I missed the point entirely. I don't think so. They are one and the same.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Agent X

Except he took my comment completely out of context.

 

I thought it was in reference to Gary's dislike of ECs, I didn't think it had anything to do with you.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

1) Missile deflection and Damage Reduction can't be placed in an EC.

 

2) Considering he has probably 5" or less of superleap, it wouldn't be a very good EC.

 

3) Please explain to me how draining his Batarangs would drain his leap, missile deflection, and damage reduction at the same time.

 

Ah, but once you: 1) ignore the silly rule about no zero-END powers in ECs, and 2) ignore the silly rule about Adjustment powers affecting every power in the EC, then everything is fine, and the Martial Artist and the Energy Projector are both rewarded for good concept and design.

 

It's those rules, supposedly put in to balance ECs, that make them so lopsided in favor of some character types in the first place.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Gary

Characteristics are underpriced, but EB's have the same access to them as MA's. Overall levels are not underpriced in my experience. 10 pts is a pretty hefty price.

 

Having built quite a few characters that rely largely on the characteristics, I'd have to say I disagree. They get expensive in a hurry if they're what you're depending on for your character's effectiveness. But, I think they're fairly balanced with the powers.

 

STR, for example. 50 pts gets you a 12d6 attack (60 Str from the base of 10 = 50 pts). Yes, the 50 pts also gets you up to 12 PD, but it's not resistant, and hardly enough PD for a Brick or Quasi-Brick, or most other characters for that matter. Etc.

 

DEX...9 pts gets you +1 OCV -and- DCV, and + .3 SPD. 8 pts on an Overall Combat Level gets you +1 OCV -or- DCV, but it is flexible and has some other uses, IIRC.

 

Characteristics are also available to every character, so it's not as if we're comparing two different powers, each of which would typically be limited to two different character types.

 

[prestidigitator]

Originally posted by Kristopher

Having built quite a few characters that rely largely on the characteristics, I'd have to say I disagree. They get expensive in a hurry if they're what you're depending on for your character's effectiveness.

True! I don't think either Characteristics or Skill Levels are underpriced.