1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Vote for us!

Remember to vote for ZEJ at our Top RP Sites page! You can vote only once daily, so make sure to do so and help us reach the top!

Q&A The Statplaying Q&A Thread

Discussion in 'Roleplaying Discussion' started by Shadow, Nov 22, 2013.

  1. I've never actually much liked innate crit chance. It's just an extra RNG element in a system that's mostly diceless. It's so rare it doesn't feel like a major part of play unless someone has skills and items (as you say) so I just feels bullshit when someone gets it. That said, I've never protested either because I understand that a small level of "bullshit" can be healthy for the game's predictability. I have no problems with swapping over to Masq's system for this.

    Of note, I was actually considering removing evasion and critical when I was going to run  AC, under the excuse that there were enough variables keeping situations interesting already. In reality, I just didn't want to deal with that factor, as I said, there was already a bunch of nonsense going on behind the scenes.
  2. I actually like having both Crit and Evasion, if only because I'm a DPT lover (and would probably end up tossing a High Crit Rate effect on at least one of my dual-wielded snakes if Critical was removed as a stat).

    I don't mind removing it from the crossover because it is an unfair advantage over their system, but I'm for keeping it otherwise. It's definitely in the (currently nonexistent) system I'm using for KeM.
  3. Shadowsystem can keep it if it wants, but I personally never much liked the Critical stat. Admittedly, I was the first ED player to implement it in a roleplay there, but it was to test it. My issue with it lie in the fact that there's no way to accurately grow it. Most characters that aren't focused on landing critical hits aren't going to just get better at dealing them by dumb luck naturally. Ultimately that last bit is what a Critical stat comes down to: Dumb luck. You see it in movies and games all the time––the character unwittingly manages to land a severe blow on the enemy. They weren't trying to do it, it simply just happened.

    I understand the variability by having it in play, but it just isn't prevalent enough for me to get behind. In a similar vein, characters who focus on landing critical hits have it built into their movesets and gameplay. They have innates and equips that support them landing those heavy blows and landing them often. It makes sense given that's what they train to do.

    Furthermore, it's just another thing to keep track of and have to roll as a GM. I'm not gonna lie, when it comes to GMing, I'm lazy. I don't like having more to do than I normally have to keep up with. Although it runs in the same vein as rolling for evasion or status effects (which I enjoy for whatever reason) I just can't feel motivated to do it for characters who aren't focused on getting Crits. A healer having a crit stat? What's the point? Even a good deal of DPS/DPT characters are just focused on hitting things a lot or doing a lot of damage fast, not necessarily dealing pinpointed damage to their weak spots. If not everyone is going to use it, why have it?

    So... no. I don't think the Critical stat should be A Thing, but I certainly won't stop someone else from using it in their roleplays.

    As far as DD is concerned, I'm further inclined to toss it out because Masqsystem doesn't use a Critical stat and it becomes another thing to try and balance if we leave it. Let's save ourselves headaches where we can. It's a big enough project to tackle as it is!
  4. To elaborate on that bit about a soft Total Damage cap on Minimum Damage with Multihits, I'll provide an example with actual numbers involved. Minimum Damage is defined as Total Damage that is "rounded up" to 1 even when Defensive Stats subtract the Base Damage to 0 or less than 0. Essentially, it is a means of ensuring that every Damage Instance inflicts at least 1 point of Damage on a given Target.

    If Secunda's Def is 4, then,

    This is by the way NOT an instance of Minimum Damage, as 5 - 4 is not lesser than or equal to 0.

    If Secunda's Def was 5 or higher, however,

    The soft cap on Total Damage is applied. The current limit in this case is 10 Total Damage delivered through cumulative Minimum Damage--any further Damage from that point will be effectively square rooted. This greatly reduces the impact of abusing Minimum Damage through Multihits.
  5. So, I feel like it might be a good time to bring this up (although Cerby and Shadow have seemingly already been discussing this, and Cerby and myself had a brief conversation about it as well)...

    As more and more "Shields" -- not the Equipment, but the extra little 'bubble' of HP -- enter the metagame (see: Recursion), I feel like the effects should be standardized somewhat across the board. Some Shields have attributes that have them receive effectively Piercing Damage, and some are still mitigated by Def. in damage calculation.

    For posterity, this is what @CerberusLycan sent to me last night:

    I'm not sure it's necessary for us to have varying types of Shield (or "barriers" or whatever we end up calling them), but I do think that the effects and wording should at least be given some sort of standardization. My personal preference would be to universally go with what Cerby dubbed the "External Shield" for all types -- I think it is unnecessary to have Physical/Magical Shields, and "Full Shield" should probably just be put out of its misery based on how tedious the first Recursion battle went (with the Beta Block in full effect). I wanted to open a discussion about it, though, so that more people could weigh in on it in a public setting.

    So... thoughts on Shields/Barriers and their place in the metagame?
  6. Personally, the "External Shield" is what I picture when someone talks about this kind of mechanic. I don't employ it very often – I've only used it with two characters, Em and Clara – and it's not supposed to be an end all to be all sort of thing, at least in my mind. They deal with instances of damage in the same way and are meant to sponge up damage your character would take. It has it's own defense which, speaking honestly, should be nothing. It's a conjured means to cover your character. When I read that it does not make me think it has any sort of defenses of its own – it comes off as a chunk of floating HP similar to how a substitute in the Pokémon games works.

    Now, if a character were to take a cell from the battlefield and turn that into a shield, I think there's some room for variation as far as a "shield mechanic" goes. Oftentimes those types of things (walls, trees, rocks, furniture, etc.) have some sort of defensive stat and HP of their own – if those end up getting used as a shield utilize that. It has its own stats to play off of.

    I don't think anything conjured should work like a unit fully. The same idea along slightly different matters with summons/familiars. But that's another topic for another day...
  7. As someone who typically prefers DPT and sometimes Control units I've never used the mechanic, but Cerby does in KeM and I generally have no issue with it. Syntax would be nice though.
  8. Barriers. Using "Shields" is ambiguous when we already have a designated term for Shields (that is, the Equipment class).

    That said, I have no qualms with Barriers, as long as they're properly balanced. Beta Block was an improperly-constructed Innate to begin with, so we shouldn't be using it as a reference for "Full Barriers". The possibility should exist, but as Recursion has shown, they should be considered a higher-tier property with an appropriate restriction (in case of Innates and Abilities) or cost (in case of A-Skills) behind them.

    We don't need to standardize every possible variation of Barrier properties, but some form of syntax or keywords would definitely help, especially since their place within damage calculation is ambiguous at best, and I don't think repeatedly defining every possible ruling of the Barrier in any and every Ability that uses them is particularly effective.

    So, I will be laying down some fundamental rulings that all Barriers are expected to follow, and deviation in basic properties will need to be explicitly defined in the same effect that is applying them.


    • Damage Instances directed towards a Barrier are Piercing and disregard the Unit's Defensive Stats.
    • Added Effects and the like bypass the Barrier and affect the Unit directly; however, this can be overruled by the GM for IC consistency.
    • Barriers are considered to be the topmost priority for damage calculation, and as such, defensive properties such as Protect, Shell and decrements in Total Damage taken are disregarded when calculating a Damage Instance against said Barrier.
    • Spillover Damage is dealt normally.
    • Barriers do not have any Stacking parameters.

    Additionally, we could use the terms External and Integrated to differentiate Barriers that take Piercing Damage and those that use the Unit's own Defensive Stats... or, alternatively, we could consider a Barrier-exclusive defensive Stat that acts as its Def and Spr simultaneously, significantly reducing the technicalities that come from "attaching" a Barrier to a Unit's Defensive Stats.
  9. Do we have a glossary?
  10. I had started one for the Statistical Tutorial a long time ago. However, aside from sporadic contributions from Cerby and Shadow, I was the only one working on it. So it's woefully incomplete. If there is renewed interest in doing work on it so that we can have a consolidated list of terminology, I'd be happy to host it on a Google Doc or something. I just really don't have the time right now to solidify the wording and make sure everything is sufficiently explained.

    EDIT: I'm going to go ahead and do exactly that. I've set up a GDoc for editing the terminology associated with statplaying. It lacks some of the newer terminology and is, as I said, very incomplete. But it's a start, and once more progress is made on it (assuming it's not just me looking at it) then we can post it on the forums.

    Link to the GDoc >>
  11. ShadowSystem's MP formula is now officially public, and has been documented into a Google Document: >>

    Partially documented, that is. There are still several areas in need of elaboration and / or documentation, but the core of document itself should be usable, for the most part. Commenting should be enabled (notify me if it isn't), so feel free to use it as means of notes, questions, issues, etc. I figured that creating a new thread for the formula would be redundant when this thread exists, so discussion of the formula may also be held here. Including complaints about how obtuse it is.

    I've also added a link to the GDoc in the OP under a new "Resources" header.
  12. [​IMG]

    H E H

    @CerberusLycan good1

    This also doubles as a bump and a call for attention to the ZEJ Statplaying Glossary -- I encourage everyone to take a look over it, to add inline comments to terminology that they don't understand or feel could be better clarified, and contribute with anything they can. Many hands make light work!
  13. How restricted are effects that affect the X-Gauge?
  14. After talking with @Eebit on Skype in regards to wording/effects of the X-Ability I submitted for the recently concluded statistical tourney, these little gems came up:

    [5/24/16, 3:13:31 PM] Quinn Xavier: I believe Drowning needs to be standardized. I don’t think we’ve really seen it enough in action.
    [5/24/16, 3:14:59 PM] Quinn Xavier: I think it might also be important to discuss cell stuff because trying to use Great Flood on a cliffside would have very different effects than if it were used in say… a crater.
    [5/24/16, 4:52:00 PM] Jake: I think the questions / discussion about standardizing Cell stuff or Drowning could go in the Statplaying Q&A thread
    [5/24/16, 4:52:11 PM] Jake: Seems like the perfect opportunity to open up some discussion there

    Obviously, it'd be a good idea to flesh out some of this stuff for more than just the sake of having Celina's X-Ability ironed out. As I mentioned to Eebit, Drowning isn't really something we see all that often. When we do we typically see the unit thrashing and pretty much doomed to flail about until they die a few turns later. It's a little sad and kinda unrealistic if you ask me.

    I mean, yeah, you're gonna flail and thrash and all that jazz, but who's to say our characters don't know how to swim? Or that they might have the sense to at least attempt to get out of the water. I know there might be certain circumstances like trying to swim in plate armor or physically being unable to get out of the water, but those are conditional.

    There's also the strange (and rare instance) where Drowning is a possible effect attached to a move. I've never seen it in action so I don't know how that works –– it almost seems like an Instant Death to me in those cases.

    That's why I move for at least creating a foundation for this "status" –– I don't even like calling it a status because it's more of a state of being. Maybe if we establish a general "rule set" for it it's not so weird.

    In addition, I'd like to discuss water cells in particular. Maybe it's a GM by GM basis, but it seems to me that, in most cases, water cells aren't deep enough to drown in. If you plop water in the middle of a bridge, it's not gonna suddenly tell the bridge to fuck off and occupy that space like some weird amorphous sentient space. It's probably just gonna make the bridge wet. Still a water cell, but not one a unit would possibly drown in.

    Likewise, if you step into a pond, the water close to the shore is pretty shallow. We might represent it as water cells, but a foot of water isn't suddenly gonna strangle our characters to death until they step out of it.

  15. So just to point out, we have four examples of Water being used in ZEJ's recent history (which is actually a bit surprising to me-- I thought it would be less common). And they're handled differently in each; in one, they are unable to be Occupied, in another the Unit's Statistics are lowered by 50% while they're Occupying a Water Cell, and in most, Moving out of them requires either assistance or extra exertion. In Judicial Component, we see an example of Drowning, and it seems to do 30% of the Unit's Max HP for every Turn spent Drowning. I'm not going to say any of these are objectively correct, but I do like the main Water features in Nate's map submission. Requiring resources in the form of a Turn's Movement Command to exit the water, and drastically reducing the combat ability of Units wading through it, seems appropriate. If a Unit is having to wade through almost any sort of Water Cell, it makes sense to me to reduce their Movement. If a character has to use their arms to exit a body of water, it makes sense to me that the action would consume both their Default Commands. The problem with all of this is that it generalizes.

    In regards to Units automatically Drowning and being assumed to be flailing in the water, the problem with saying that some characters would know how to swim is that gives them a free, statistical advantage. In actual statplays I'd hope the Players would be honest, but when the alternative is perhaps being unable to do anything, and rely on another character to come help you, or yours is KO'd within a few Turns, the stakes are increased just a bit. I actually don't have the most interest in this topic and am kind of just throwing out random ideas because I feel like in the end, the conclusion we'll have to arrive at is it's subjective and should just be handled individually by GMs in each case.
  16. In this scenario I like how DnD handles it- rolling and increasing or lowering your score based on outside factors.

    In statplaying, it could easily just be a chance the GM checks, like rolling a status effect.
  17. To be honest there's nothing to really standardize. "Water Cells" are very contextual in nature; they could represent the surface of a sea just as well as they could represent a shallow stream that the players could cross without any issues. Imposing rigid guidelines on these kind of cells--not just Water Cells, mind you, but any other Cell with subjective interpretations--just takes away the freedom of defining what the environment does in every Battlefield. Just like not every tree will have the same stats, nor every wall will have the same Constitution values, the same could be said for Water Cells.

    Thus, there is no "objectively correct" Water Cell, seeing as they are highly dependent on the context they are used in.

    As for Drowning, there was a point where I had it in the Inflictionary but then removed due to how... awkward it was. This is another case of a primarily contextual issue: Drowning can mean various things, and it is impractical to assume that becoming submerged in a body of water and being forcibly asphyxiated with a stream of water should behave the same, mechanically speaking. There is no way to cleanly set a universal effect or effects on Drowning, so I would personally leave it as-is: handle its exact definition on a case-by-case basis. Every instance of an effect that defines "Drowning" would need to internally define how this Status is going to be applied, which isn't exactly different from creating a custom status or set of debuffs, anyway.
  18. Shadow you didn't answer my earlier question
  19. I'm not sure. Altering the X-Gauge isn't something you normally do directly, so I would have rather steep and/or restrictive MP Costs for effects which increase X-Levels. Or even disallow them altogether unless there is a compelling drawback. Decreasing X-Levels, on the other hand, would be less expensive, especially if they're treated as Added Effects without a 100% proc rate. I would estimate a 100% Stat Damage, Adjacent-Range A-Skill which has a "Chance of Depleting 1 X-Level" to be roughly 8 MP, give or take a margin of +/- 2 MP.

    Additionally, "Freezing" the X-Gauge can be A Thing outside of Excess Processes. I actually wanted to come up with a couple of X-Level "Statuses" that could impact the X-Gauge in various ways, but in the end I only ended up settling with "Frozen" X-Levels.
  20. I know this isn't dealing with the X-Gauge, but in regards to Masq's equivalent, I know that Zio's character Nest uses DD through his innate ability.

    These Epic triggers give his A-Skills, S-Ability, and even his R-Ability altered effects. For example:

    Not sure if that's something that could work for the X-Gauge, but just thought I'd point it out~

Share This Page