|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 12:39AM
#671
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
Are you now arguing that Guardian Harrier is super powerful in some situation somewhere?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 1:17AM
#672
|
Date Joined:
Dec 27, 2008
|
Are you now arguing that Guardian Harrier is super powerful in some situation somewhere?
No,try to keep up.
I'm saying that if you increase the damage it will become more useful than acid orb in the vast majority of situations, while the situations where it will be less useful (i.e. those situations where the moving is more beneficial to the enemy than taking damage), will be too easy to mitigate or avoid. It will thus be a more powerful striker power than an actual striker power.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 4:10AM
#673
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
I'm saying that if you increase the damage it will become more useful than acid orb in the vast majority of situations, while the situations where it will be less useful (i.e. those situations where the moving is more beneficial to the enemy than taking damage), will be too easy to mitigate or avoid. It will thus be a more powerful striker power than an actual striker power.
OK, so I get it now.
You are on debate 2: practical consideration of balancing enemy choice powers in the wild.
To a certain extent I agree with you.
If we took two powers, one that just immobilizes the target, and one that gives the target two choices:
1) Be immobilized.
2) Die.
You are absolutely correct that this power, while logically inferior to the former, is also practically equal. Because the situation required for it to be inferior (some creature that is immune to "choosing to die" but is instantly vaporized if immobilized) is so ludicrous as to not matter. Therefore, from a game balance standpoint, it is silly to look at that power and say "well, that's mathematically inferior to pure immobilize, so we had better boost that side of the power" and change the options to:
1) Be immobilized and weakened.
2) Die.
I agree with you that it's possible to make a power that can guarantee an effect so well it's practically a guaranteed effect power, and so claiming the less ludicrously overpowered effect is "balanced" because it's part of an enemy chooses power has twisted Reynemile's logical proof into munchkin logic.
Where I disagree with you is your assertion that since it's possible to build twisted munchkin logic enemy choice powers on the back of Reynemile's proof, this somehow makes it impossible to balance enemy choice powers.
I know I can prove you wrong (Reynemile already did), but I know that method won't convince you you're wrong (because Reynemile failed to do it). But I think you can prove you wrong. And here's how:
1a) Please state what the 90% of situations are that Guardian Harrier is just as equal as acid orb. You may use exclusive language.
1b) Please prove that these situations occur 90% of the time.
2a) Please state what the 5% of situations where Acid Orb is superior to GH are. Again you may use exclusive language.
2b) Please prove that these situations occur 5% of the time.
3) Please prove that 5% of all creatures encountered in a campaign who would be the target of GH or Acid Orb will have acid resistance.
I think you will find that
a) the situations where GH is exactly equivalent to AO is far less common than you claim.
b) The situations where Acid Orb is superior to GH are far more common than you claim.
c) Things like "whoop! everything's suddenly acid immune!" are effects of a capricious DM actively screwing with you, and not really a factor that can or should be taken into account when balancing the power.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 5:11AM
#674
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
I don't fully understand why acid orb in this comparison is allowed to factor class features from the sorcerer but no class features from the seeker are being considered.
Hi Iofgren,
You asked a lot of questions, and the answer to all of them is the same--that there are three separate, closely related but nonetheless distinct arguments going on in this thread, and most of your issues stem from the three debates getting blurred together. Sorry it's confusing; I definitely have no one to blame but myself. I'll try to clear things up (and I may recopy this into my OP, as a thread summary)
The first debate is a mathematical one. The question is, are powers that offer enemy choice mathematically inferior to powers that force equivalent effects on monsters with no choice? This involves game theory. It also a hypothetical version of Guardian Harrier that is identical to Acid Orb in all respects save the existence of enemy choice, ignoring range, defense, and damage type. GH was definitely the wrong choice of an example for this debate, but as I said earlier, I realized that five months too late.
The second debate is a practical one. Given the mathematical inferiority of enemy choice powers (which I think we've FINALLY reached consensus on), are they still inferior in real life? How often can DMs be relied on to make the wrong choice, intentionally and accidentally, and is it okay to publish powers that rely on such sub-optimal play to function? This debate has fallen into the background, but is still occasionally addressed. It's also the one with the fewest concrete answers and the most subjective experience. My stance is that yes, relying on DM kindness to make EC powers good is unreliable and makes them as bad in practice as in theory.
The third debate is a game design one about the relationship between Strikers and Controller. Despite GH's melee range, which makes it situationally useful, it still is a power that provide little to no control--it's a pseudo-striker power. The power that I'm comparing it to, meanwhile, is a pure Striker power. The question is, given Controllers role as battlefield controller, is it okay for them to have sub-par striker powers? To what extent, if any, are the powers of Strikers and Controllers comparable? I'm of the opinion that, because Strikers and Controllers come on the weakest 'chassis', with low HP, low defenses, and few directly applicable features except for Striker damage mechanics, it's reasonable to compare Striker and Controller powers. However, this opinion is by no means universal.
(From: Your friendly devil's advocate sitting in the peanut gallery  )
The first debate might have reached consensus, but the consensus is still wrong. 
This is the debate that I have tried to stay in, but have been drawn at times into #2.
The EC power and the A effect power will both converge on the same expected damage point as the sample size grows. This is true because the EC power can be used in a manner that exactly mimics the A effect power. Therefore, both the A and the EC power are functionally equivalent as the sample size reaches infinity (and thus the convergence point).
The second debate is the more interesting one, and the more difficult to quantify. Given that the two powers converge mathmatically, will they continue to do so in a practical setting. I can see two lines of argument here. Rev chooses the argument that relies on imperfect play by real DM. But, I think a better approach is to look at it from the other side. Keeping the EC power at the same level as the A power requires the caster of the EC power to always have another option when the EC power would mimic B instead of A. This is where compelling arguments can be made that the set of powers containing the EC power is insufficient to guarantee that the EC power will maintain A's convergence point. This analysis should be done on a case by case basis. At that point it could be said that the EC power, as implemented, is inferior to the A power.
But here's the rub. The set containing the A power, and the set containing the EC power are mutually exclusive. A single caster is never faced with the choice between the two. It is possible to have the EC power in its weakened state, while maintaining parity between the two power sets as a whole. From a game design perspective, balancing the two sets of options is of greater importance than balancing power EC from the first set with power A from the second.
Which leads naturally into debate three, the relationship between striker and controller. Here I am far less comfortable making any argument. But I will say that I find the idea of a power that allows a controller to do striker-level direct single-target damage when the conditions are right to be interesting.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 5:29AM
#675
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
(From: Your friendly devil's advocate sitting in the peanut gallery )
The first debate might have reached consensus, but the consensus is still wrong.
This is going to sound like name calling, so I'm going to say it in my best 3rd grader voice:
No yooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!
The EC power and the A effect power will both converge on the same expected damage point as the sample size grows. This is true because the EC power can be used in a manner that exactly mimics the A effect power. Therefore, both the A and the EC power are functionally equivalent as the sample size reaches infinity (and thus the convergence point).
That is not how statistical projections work, that's not even how infinity works. As the sample size approaches infinity, the number of times that the EC power exactly mimics the A power approaches infinity. But this infinity is a smaller infinity than the than the sample size infinity. No matter how large the sample size is, even infinite, one portion of the sample is the portion where the EC power exactly equaled the A power, but another portion of the sample is composed of times where the EC power underperformed the A power.
Maybe I can better explain with coin flips: As I flip a (perfectly true) coin, the distribution of heads results and tails results approaches exactly 1/2. If I flip the coin an infinite number of times, I will get an infinite number of heads results but this does not mean that flipping the coin an infinite number of times causes the distribution to converge on 100% heads. Instead the infinite number of heads is actually an infinity equal to the infinite number of tails results and half the size of the infinite number of coin flips.
Everything I have just said sounds nuts, but is completely true.
Which leads naturally into debate three, the relationship between striker and controller. Here I am far less comfortable making any argument. But I will say that I find the idea of a power that allows a controller to do striker-level direct single-target damage when the conditions are right to be interesting.
I think a better question, if you're talking about stuff at this level, is why is the direct single-target striker-level damage that the Seeker has access to the absolute worst* single-target striker-level damage available and then weakened further by being an EC power? The sorcerer deals most of his striker-level damage by applying his (moderate) striker damage mod liberally over a large number of enemies with spells like Blazing Starfall, or he just rolls a boatload of dice that are allready accounted for in his powers. GH is weak compared to Acid Orb, and then Acid Orb is weak compared to other striker powers. It's ridiculous!
*Ok, second worst if you have a 18+ strength, worst if you have a 16 or less.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 5:55AM
#676
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
That is not how statistical projections work, that's not even how infinity works. As the sample size approaches infinity, the number of times that the EC power exactly mimics the A power approaches infinity. But this infinity is a smaller infinity than the than the sample size infinity. No matter how large the sample size is, even infinite, one portion of the sample is the portion where the EC power exactly equaled the A power, but another portion of the sample is composed of times where the EC power underperformed the A power.
Maybe I can better explain with coin flips: As I flip a (perfectly true) coin, the distribution of heads results and tails results approaches exactly 1/2. If I flip the coin an infinite number of times, I will get an infinite number of heads results but this does not mean that flipping the coin an infinite number of times causes the distribution to converge on 100% heads. Instead the infinite number of heads is actually an infinity equal to the infinite number of tails results and half the size of the infinite number of coin flips.
Everything I have just said sounds nuts, but is completely true.
I have been consistently taking the position that the user of the EC power, given optimal play, would only use it when the A effect would occur. There are no incidents in the sample where the EC power does not have the A effect. So while the sample size of the A power is larger than the sample size of the EC power (and both approach infinity), they both converge on the same expected value.
Only when you force the user of the EC power to use it when A is not the result does this change.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 6:02AM
#677
|
Date Joined:
Apr 28, 2008
|
I have been consistently taking the position that the user of the EC power, given optimal play, would only use it when the A effect would occur. There are no incidents in the sample where the EC power does not have the A effect. So while the sample size of the A power is larger than the sample size of the EC power (and both approach infinity), they both converge on the same expected value.
Only when you force the user of the EC power to use it when A is not the result does this change.
So in other words the EC power is inferior because it's an A power that can be used less often. When you compare two things, you have to compare them over the entire sample size. You can't just cut out the piece of the sample that has the positive result you're looking for, ignore the negative result, and call it good. Shenanigans like that is what gets scientists fired.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 6:14AM
#678
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
I have been consistently taking the position that the user of the EC power, given optimal play, would only use it when the A effect would occur. There are no incidents in the sample where the EC power does not have the A effect. So while the sample size of the A power is larger than the sample size of the EC power (and both approach infinity), they both converge on the same expected value.
Only when you force the user of the EC power to use it when A is not the result does this change.
So in other words the EC power is inferior because it's an A power that can be used less often. You can't dump all the results you don't like and then say you're right. Shenanigans like that is what causes millions of dollars in lawsuits for medical companies every year.
I'm not dumping any results. Is the caster of the EC power allowed to act optimally or not? If allowed to act optimally, then the caster would only select to use it when the results match what is wanted, in this case result A. In all other cases, the caster would select a different, more optimal, option.
A power that can be used less often is only inferior when you want to use it more often than it's optimal use would indicate. That is a function of the overall set of powers available to a caster, not the individual power within that set. And that is moving away from discussion #1 into discussions #2 and #3 where limiting the caster's options could result in an inferior implementation.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 6:35AM
#679
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2004
|
I'm not dumping any results. Is the caster of the EC power allowed to act optimally or not? If allowed to act optimally, then the caster would only select to use it when the results match what is wanted, in this case result A. In all other cases, the caster would select a different, more optimal, option.
A power that can be used less often is only inferior when you want to use it more often than it's optimal use would indicate. That is a function of the overall set of powers available to a caster, not the individual power within that set. And that is moving away from discussion #1 into discussions #2 and #3 where limiting the caster's options could result in an inferior implementation.
If you can't use the optimal power, you can't act optimally.
If "dealing more damage" is the optimal move, you can always use Acid Orb. You can't always deal more damage with Guardian Harrier, so sometimes you'll make the less optimal move of using a Grasping Spirits that leaves the enemy with 3 HP, which isn't a ringing endorsement of Guardian Harrier. You took the power to deal extra damage and you can easily be stuck in a situation where you need extra damage and can't use it!
The idea that you don't have to use Guardian Harrier is irrevelant to deciding whether or not the power is useful. You could have used that other power whether or not you took Guardian Harrier.
Seriously, Guardian Harrier is as good as Acid Orb because you can use Grasping Spirits/Biting Swarm instead of it?
Heavy Rocks
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Aug 06, 2010 - 7:23AM
#680
|
Date Joined:
Jul 30, 2010
|
I'm not dumping any results. Is the caster of the EC power allowed to act optimally or not? If allowed to act optimally, then the caster would only select to use it when the results match what is wanted, in this case result A. In all other cases, the caster would select a different, more optimal, option.
A power that can be used less often is only inferior when you want to use it more often than it's optimal use would indicate. That is a function of the overall set of powers available to a caster, not the individual power within that set. And that is moving away from discussion #1 into discussions #2 and #3 where limiting the caster's options could result in an inferior implementation.
If you can't use the optimal power, you can't act optimally.
If "dealing more damage" is the optimal move, you can always use Acid Orb. You can't always deal more damage with Guardian Harrier, so sometimes you'll make the less optimal move of using a Grasping Spirits that leaves the enemy with 3 HP, which isn't a ringing endorsement of Guardian Harrier. You took the power to deal extra damage and you can easily be stuck in a situation where you need extra damage and can't use it!
The idea that you don't have to use Guardian Harrier is irrevelant to deciding whether or not the power is useful. You could have used that other power whether or not you took Guardian Harrier.
Seriously, Guardian Harrier is as good as Acid Orb because you can use Grasping Spirits/Biting Swarm instead of it?
If you can't act optimally then we are back to this statement: "Given two equal opponents A and B, if A acts optimally and B does not then A has the advantage"
I don't think anyone disputes that. But that statement is true regardless of power selection.
But an EC power, in and of itself, does not restrict the caster from acting optimally. That restriction comes from the overall set of powers available to the caster.
As to the specific example, if the only optimal action for a particular situation is "dealing more damage" then there are a lot of non-striker sad pandas in that situation far beyond our poor little Seeker. In fact, if that situation occurs often enough, it is a suboptimal choice to select a non-striker class at all.
And your last point? No, Guardian Harrier is not as good as Acid Orb because you can use the other power. It is a meaningless comparison. The proper comparison would be is the Guardian Harrier/X pair balanced with the Acid Orb/y pair across the domain of all tactical situations. In other words, could the two casters contribute equally to the battle. Individual cases of advantage can be easily developed for each pair, but the important measure is the overall contribution in aggregate.
|
|
|
