SFR, Inc. Forum Index SFR, Inc.
Forums that relate to SFR products
 
 Watched TopicsWatched Topics   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A simple suggestion to help a bit monsters
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:46 am GMT    Post subject: A simple suggestion to help a bit monsters Reply with quote

Hello.

Monsters are, in my opinion, a bit on the weak side. They suffers from diverses drawback (Lightning Bolt, less reliable result, less chance for ID results, ...), which in some case is well compensated by powerful SAI (Fireshadow, Troll for example), and on other case ... not so much (Ettercap and Frost Ogre are spectaculary bad in this regard).

One of their drawback is that their icon to health ratio is the lowest of all die class (an average of 1 result per face per health, vs 7/6 result per face per health for common). Offsetting this drawback seem for me the easiest way.

For that, I propose a small change : while ID and SAI for monster are still worth 4 icons, non-SAI, non-ID icon will be worth 5 icon. For example, a fireshadow would still generate 4 melee with his Create Fireshadow and 4 smite with its smite, but he would produce 5 melee with his melee face.

The good thing is that this change tend to advantage mainly "weak" monster (since most of them only have 1 to 3 SAI), and only help minimaly powerful monster.

To speak with number, here are the icon per face per health ratio
Common icon ratio : ~1.16 (7/6)
Uncommon ratio: ~1.08 (13/12)
Rare ratio : ~1.05 (19/18, with the conqueror as exception)
Monster on current rule : 1

With this modification, monster would go from 1.2 to 1.05. In most case, it put focused monster more or less on part with focused rare. Some examples :

* the Firewalker Salamander would became the equivalent of 4 guardian, with the added bonus of cantrip and slightly better save, which would give him a credible role. He would also be significantly better at melee than the Fireshadow. He would still be inferior to heavily melee focused rare like the Oak Lord or the Leopard Rider.

* the amazon Hydra would become a lot scarier, becoming the hardest-hitting melee amazon unit and the second hardest to kill

* the sprite swarm would be a significantly better magician ; still only as as an uncommon mage while costing 4 magic health, but it begin to be credible as a mage / archer combination

* the skeletal steed is significantly improved, since he stop being inferior on every point compared to 4 wraiths.

* the wolf pack are bumped to the level of the leopard-rider. Of every monster I have checked, it's certainly the one closest to became broken with this rule, especially with Flashfire. His brokenness is very related to Rend ; but, unlike Leopard Rider, he share a color with firewalkers.

* monster with specialized SAI, like Owl-folk, Remorhaz, or Darktree become less expensive to include, while still providing less punch than regular units.

* artifact, if we apply the same rule, may also be a bit problematic. The Blade golem, in particular, become spectacular. Still, the existence of the medallion balance this : it's extremely dangerous to spent 8 points on magic item in an army, and medallion are kind of broken in their own right, so it would put artifact as decent concurrent more than anything else.

All in all, I think that this rule would have more benefit as far as army construction go than drawback. It does not fix every monster to the playable state, but it help significantly a good number of them, and its benefit to already good monster seem limited. Of course, I don't know every monster by heart. They may be other problematics monsters for this rule in the wild.

If somebody find the idea interesting, I am willing to try a forum game to see how it work out (not that one game would be enough to see if it's balanced). It would certainly be with a frostwing / firewalker army, since the Wolf pack (and to a lesser point the Yeti and cryohydra) are monster I think more likely to became broken, something which only testing can verify.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
piMaster
rare
Stockholder



Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 3235
Location: Rockford, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:53 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made this suggestion years ago. No one took much interest in it. But I think it would be a good experiment to see how it works out.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:06 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting... did you consider what a buring hands would do?

It would turn the melee into 10 melee.


Saves and maneuvers on an 8th face would double...

Magic?


Cliff was instrumental in remodifying the magic items to have health bonus build points...(rares and uncommons)
maybe that would be a better approach...although I must say,
I still have not seen many players take advantage of this already incorporated rule.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:23 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEEPBLUEB2 wrote:

It would turn the melee into 10 melee.

Saves and maneuvers on an 8th face would double...

Scalder (and to a less extent lava elve and other race with 5-icon rare) show it's not that much of a problem. You may have a bit more consistency in doubling very high result, which does not seem all that powerful to me.

DEEPBLUEB2 wrote:

although I must say,
I still have not seen many players take advantage of this already incorporated rule.


Well, regardless of how you put it, you can't put too much magic items in an army, 4 point or so for me, and certainly not more than 8. Since Medallion are arguably more powerful, and at the very least give a more unique effect, it's very hard to find room for artifact and not easy to find room for regular items.

Also, small amount of items have a good rate of success to me and are less often strictly less good than commons units.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
loligarchy
common
Stockholder



Joined: 01 Oct 2012
Posts: 251
Location: Fresno, CA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:14 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do like this concept and don't see anything on first blush that wouldn't be too terrible, the idea is statistically sound at least.
Now of course this doesn't really help heavy magic monsters but they suffer from a terminal case of being ten sided dice so yeah.

And in regards to the wolf pack even if they are brought in line with the leopard rider's damage, they would still be much more fragile than one and prone to lightning strikes and the (increasingly common) swallow so I don't think it would be much more game breaking than leopard riders already are.

I would also be wary of how this affects elephant folk, as its not unheard of already to bring two into a match. This change would give them access to the single highest damage melee hit for ferals, while not much higher than the Tiger's 4, with a wilding and a trumpet that does mean 4 extra hits over what the Tiger's final value comes up as (not counting doublestrike of course) and this could be problematic especially since a Tiger has no manuevers, whereas an elephant still happens to have a 30% chance to do so and 20% of those are trample...
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
shoesan
uncommon



Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 639
Location: PA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 12:19 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

What if magic items didnt count towards your army health, but were brought by sacrificing minor terrains or dragonkin? Replace a minor terrain with a common magic item.. something like that? And you have to summon the magic item into your army?

I like the monsters having 5 points on their normal faces idea. Very interesting. Would make something like Flaming Shields pretty potent though!
_________________
Shoe
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:24 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's worth testing, at least. That said, I find some fault in the reasoning presented.

First, a small point mathematically: Counting the Uncommon ID as 2 points rather than as "1 icon" results in a total of 14 "points" worth of results, yielding the same ratio as Commons. We can assume this was just an oversight. However, it reinforces a greater point: Rares suffer the poorer ratio to offset the potency of SAI's (other considerations are generally balanced); Monsters are penalized more heavily still. SAI's are very powerful.

On the point of Burning Hands and the like: The outlier Rares have a 1/6 chance of generating the unusually high (5 or 6 point face) result, and usually a similar if not greater chance (think Swamp Stalkers) of rolling a face that produces less than 1 icon per unit health. A Monster would get 10 Melee (or Saves or Maneuver) every time it rolled the appropriate non-SAI icon, which on some would be very often and on some would not matter much.

Some of the concerns appear to be theoretical rather than necessarily statistically demonstrated. Sure, a 4-point unit is a more practical target for a Lightning Strike than is a lower-health unit -- if your opponent has Blue magic and if he chooses to spend the points that way. A 4-point unit is harder to kill than anyone else with Finger of Death, or to bury with Ashes/Dust, and though a Monster/Champion is similarly costly to restore to life with magic, a game is more likely to see of Life spells than direct-damage. One can argue the merits of concentration vs. diversification all day; if it were clearly always better to take 3 Commons over 1 Rare, or vice versa, people would always do it.

Reliability of results varies by Monster. A goodly number of them save at a 30% rate, which is 3.3% less than a 6-sider with a single Save face -- not insignificant, but not something that will show up until you've played a lot of games with the same army. Many Monsters have a theoretical weakness (lack of a particular result) overshadowed by a significantly higher probability of favorable result: the product of an SAI that can be used in multiple rolls or which applies to multiple rolls. Some Monsters are very "focused" and some are more scattered, as is the case with 6-siders.

And this is the at the heart of the matter: Some Monsters do see a good deal of use. Some are largely neglected. Would such a change impel people to use heretofore rejected Monsters? (As a paired concern: Would it make already popular Monsters too good?) Would I dust off that Drider or that Centaur if each did just a little more? I suppose this is what we would be testing. Given the number of 6-siders who lie untouched, I am not sure this would really change things, but it's worth a shot.

In sum: 1. Some Monster "weakness" could be a matter of perception and fear of risk more than of reality. 2. Some Monsters will just be bad no matter what.

(Of note, I'm not sure what the fear is with the Wolf Pack. The only result of a reroll that would both impact a melee action and be affected by the change would be a Melee face -- of which there are two. In the event it was rolled, that would be the end of the roll, resulting in 1 extra point of Melee.)
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 2:18 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:

First, a small point mathematically: Counting the Uncommon ID as 2 points rather than as "1 icon" results in a total of 14 "points" worth of results, yielding the same ratio as Commons.

You're right, it was an error in counting.
AC wrote:
However, it reinforces a greater point: Rares suffer the poorer ratio to offset the potency of SAI's (other considerations are generally balanced); Monsters are penalized more heavily still. SAI's are very powerful.

Yes, but the icon disavantadge is only one of numerous problems monster have. Some examples, which are in no particular order and often sammlish effect that add to each other :
* less ID
* in most case, less reliability because monster tend to be less focused and they have 10 differents face instead of 6. Also, you roll 1 dice instead of 2 or 4 (or 4/3 for rare :p)
* less "peak" result. 4 common can do 8 combat ; a monster do 4 at most, rend notwithstanding. The consequence is you are less able to do a very good roll that overwhelm your opponent.
* less body mean it's harder to fragmente your army when needed. It show mainly when you try to have 4 or 5 monster.
* harder to be retrieved from the DUA (except via troll or medallion). Doing 12 magic at once is in my opinion a big commitment, and you cannot use your cantrip or leftover point after big spell for that.
* for some specific monster, being strictly less good than their common counterpart. The Skeletal steed is a good example : on each possible dice roll, you get on average the same or better result with four wraith.

They also have a lot of advantage, like access to SAI (some being powerful, but not all), being less easy to target with some spell (but far from all), offering bigger advantage on some spell (burning hand, earthen armor ...), but the balance is not in favor of monster in my opinion, by a significant margin. It seem to be an opinion that at least a significant part of player share, even if I understand people can disagree.

Rare dice tend to perform significantly better than monster because they are more focused and don't suffer from most of monster drawbacks. And they tend to have access to most of the powerful SAI, even if they only have one type each.

AC wrote:

On the point of Burning Hands and the like: The outlier Rares have a 1/6 chance of generating the unusually high (5 or 6 point face) result, and usually a similar if not greater chance (think Swamp Stalkers) of rolling a face that produces less than 1 icon per unit health. A Monster would get 10 Melee (or Saves or Maneuver) every time it rolled the appropriate non-SAI icon, which on some would be very often and on some would not matter much.

"very often" if not all that often either. Even the Blade golem only have 40% chance at basic melee, and no monster have more than 4 icons on 10 of the same type as far as I remember. Also, it help monster which have few SAI ; the vast majority of them are quite bad to be honest. Do you really think that the Unsealie Faerie or the Hydra are now good monster ?

You also fail to take into account that with more body the chance that one do an exceptional roll is better.

Also, because of how soaking damage work, having a slim chance at 10 or 12 is better than a good chance at 8.
AC wrote:

Some of the concerns appear to be theoretical rather than necessarily statistically demonstrated. Sure, a 4-point unit is a more practical target for a Lightning Strike than is a lower-health unit -- if your opponent has Blue magic and if he chooses to spend the points that way. A 4-point unit is harder to kill than anyone else with Finger of Death, or to bury with Ashes/Dust, and though a Monster/Champion is similarly costly to restore to life with magic, a game is more likely to see of Life spells than direct-damage. One can argue the merits of concentration vs. diversification all day; if it were clearly always better to take 3 Commons over 1 Rare, or vice versa, people would always do it.

A game cannot be balanced by statistic alone. The statistic deficit is a point I want to improve so that other points are less painful and to give to monster more roles.

I already talked about magic, but the base thing is : not all direct destruction check for health, some like Lightning bolt (or swallow) kill outright (or do 4 damage in one chunk, which is the same thing). In comparison, not only ressurection that don't check for health is non-existant (and in most case a lot harder for monster than common), but there is very few thing that are more efficient against low-health dice.

AC wrote:

Reliability of results varies by Monster. A goodly number of them save at a 30% rate, which is 3.3% less than a 6-sider with a single Save face -- not insignificant, but not something that will show up until you've played a lot of games with the same army. Many Monsters have a theoretical weakness (lack of a particular result) overshadowed by a significantly higher probability of favorable result: the product of an SAI that can be used in multiple rolls or which applies to multiple rolls. Some Monsters are very "focused" and some are more scattered, as is the case with 6-siders.

Monster are often less focused than rare dice. I may try to come up with an exact breakpoint, but for their work most rare have 4 or 5 relevant faces, while it's uncommon on monster.

And, no, they don't have higher chance of favorable result. Even monster with trample or fly often fail to have significantly higher chance of SAI ; also monster are the only one to have utility SAI, which by definition unfocus the dice to help the army.
AC wrote:

And this is the at the heart of the matter: Some Monsters do see a good deal of use. Some are largely neglected. Would such a change impel people to use heretofore rejected Monsters? (As a paired concern: Would it make already popular Monsters too good?)

I have outlined some monster that in my opinion will be helped, and outlined thoses would cross the line. Note that there is less than one monster per race which for me are really helpful now ; in most case, it's more a case of that you can get away with playing one monster than the monster being a real help.
[quote="AC"]
As I have said, if you see monster that are really pushed off the edge by the chance, explain who. For me, neither Fireshadow, troll, neither phoenix are in this case.
AC wrote:
Would I dust off that Drider or that Centaur if each did just a little more? I suppose this is what we would be testing. Given the number of 6-siders who lie untouched, I am not sure this would really change things, but it's worth a shot.

AC wrote:

In sum: 1. Some Monster "weakness" could be a matter of perception and fear of risk more than of reality. 2. Some Monsters will just be bad no matter what.

I heartely disagree with point 1.
I heartely agree with point 2. Ettercap, Frost Ogre, and the Quickling are beyond any salvation. Other, less so.
AC wrote:

(Of note, I'm not sure what the fear is with the Wolf Pack. The only result of a reroll that would both impact a melee action and be affected by the change would be a Melee face -- of which there are two. In the event it was rolled, that would be the end of the roll, resulting in 1 extra point of Melee.)

It is raised at the level of leopard rider as far as melee is concerned. Leopard rider is by a significant margin the best dice to generate tons of melee result, and the best spell to help high-reroll dice is a firewalker one (flashfire), which share a color with Wolf Pack.

The Frost Wolf is already a powerhouse in current rule ; it's less popular than, say, the troll because it's quite easy to get rid of (he does not have a lot of save), and the margin between him and regular troop is not that large. But if we widen the margin, he may be pushed of the limit.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 11:31 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're arguing concentration vs. diversification. There are whole books dedicated to weighing the relative merits of the two; after centuries of investment, no one has determined one to be definitively superior to the other. This is no basis for suggesting that Monsters are inferior.

For example: Yes, 4 Commons can combine to produce 8 results. 4 Commons will generate 1296 technically different combinations, the results of which will be distributed over a long, low bell curve. Of these combinations, precisely 1 will result in 8 icons. The player has a 0.077% chance of achieving such an end.

In the example of 4 Wraiths against 1 Skeletal Steed, the 4 Wraiths will produce fewer than 4 Maneuvers 71.99% of the time, exactly 4 Maneuvers 16.51% of the time, and greater than 4 Maneuvers 11.5% of the time (all values rounded of course); meanwhile, the Skeletal Steed will produce zero Maneuvers 40% of the time, exactly 4 Maneuvers 60% of the time, and greater than 4 Maneuvers 0% of the time. This is the gamble we undertake when selecting units.

Results weighted by probability give the Wraiths an average of 2.67 Maneuver and the Skeletal Steed an average of 2.4 Maneuver. If the Skeletal Steed were to be granted 5 results for each non-SAI Maneuver icon rolled, it would average 2.7 Maneuver. Math demonstrates what mere suggestion does not.

These are the numbers, irrespective of perception. All other considerations between the two unit choices are a matter of strategy. In this case, the numbers suggest the notion may have merit. Opinion is irrelevant. We want our decisions informed by the facts, not by opinion. This is my point.

Surely someone has access to the guts of the army analyzer and can tweak them to generate a list of means for all monster dice if non-SAI icons were worth 5 points of effect. This is likely no minor undertaking, but this would provide evidence for or against the case.


Last edited by AC on Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:46 am GMT; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
cliffwiggs
SFR Treasurer
Chief Wheedler
SDA - Rules NitPicker



Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 10763
Location: Cumming, GA - USA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:18 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:

Surely someone has access to the guts of the army analyzer
I'm not following this thread yet (the stock holders know what I'm busy doing instead), but the army analyzer just takes the stats for a monster and combines them.

calculating the states for each individual monster was painstakingly done in excel via the std dev P function, i.e. calculate the std dev for a population (which is hte difference of dividing by N or N-1, but in this case we assume the calculation IS the population because you are taking all ten possible rolls

The problem with monsters are all the SAI's that don't relate directly to normal results. Many SAI's can't be counted and thus their raw numbers end up looking lower because of it.
_________________
Multiplayer Champion Gencon11/Battlefest Champion(tied) GenCon10/World Champion GenCon07/National Champion Origins05/Intermediate Champion GenCon02/Novice Champion Origins99
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 1:53 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

AC wrote:
You're arguing concentration vs. diversification. There are whole books dedicated to weighing the relative merits of the two; after centuries of investment, no one has determined one to be definitively superior to the other. This is no basis for suggesting that Monsters are inferior.

This is a basis to say they have a drawback, in the same way that having SAI is a basis to say they have an edge. Ironically, your whole book does not say otherwise : concentration have drawback and merits, diversification have drawback and merits, and thoses book help discern it, they don't say they are equal. The whole point is that monster have too many drawbacks compared to their advantage, and need one of thoses removed, or additional advantages added, to help with that.

You have completely missed the point : it's not that any of thoses effects have enough effect to damn monster into uselessness. But they have too many small drawback to keep a really consistent niche outside of special cases ; in most case, it's more they do not weaken the army enough to be a complete tomfoolery.

Also, you're in error in saying that all option are equivalent because they are different. A skeletal steed have both inferior maximum result, more chance of 0 maneuver, and inferior average result, for example. He will not alway do less result in a roll than 4 wraith, but on average he will, and this is on top of a whole lot of other disadvantages. The choice of the Skeletal Steed is a very weak one compared to 4 wraiths.

In fact, real-world testing - and forum game can attest it - show that monster are effectively underplayed
AC wrote:

For example: Yes, 4 Commons can combine to produce 8 results. 4 Commons will generate 1296 technically different combinations, the results of which will be distributed over a long, low bell curve. Of these combinations, precisely 1 will result in 8 icons. The player has a 0.077% chance of achieving such an end.

Vs 0% for a skeletal steed. You're taking statistic way too literally once again ; the point is that a monster does not allow you for super-roll, which sometime is the only thing that can save you.
AC wrote:

These are the numbers, irrespective of perception. All other considerations between the two unit choices are a matter of strategy. In this case, the numbers suggest the notion may have merit. Opinion is irrelevant. We want our decisions informed by the facts, not by opinion. This is my point.

Fact : people play 1 monster per army on average, if even that. On the other side, I have seen much more Eldarim with 4 champions. They may be have a reason for that, which may be linked to the numerous disavantadge I have listed.
AC wrote:

Surely someone has access to the guts of the army analyzer and can tweak them to generate a list of means for all monster dice if non-SAI icons were worth 5 points of effect. This is likely no minor undertaking, but this would provide evidence for or against the case.


I will do that when I will have some time for that, I.E. not before the WE. I do have the stats of all units n a DB, but I have few spare time during this week. Calculate it on the fly with the current calculation is very easy though, it's ust that I won't make a pass on the 60 monster existing at work.

But I will reinforce the point, because you seem to not have seen it : statistic is a small part of the problem. I chose to propose to improve statistic because it's easy and the effect is relatively modest, not because perfect statistic balance is the goal.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:27 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

The premis behind modifying monsters as I understand is to make monsters more attractive and playable.

I see several problems however with this 5 point concept...
although since the monster icons are single icons, it really is a nice concept.

here's what I see....


the big problem I see is that while it solves the lame monster issue, I think this will inevitably soop up the already popular monsters to the point that players will use them even more...and still ignore most of the unused monsters.


OH yeah... what about artifacts?

Question:

If we look at the progression...

1 health units:
+1 (meaning it has 7 pips on a 6 sided die at 1 health ratio)

2 health units:
+1 or 14 pips at 2 health ratio

here some units won't have their health doubled...
variance of distibution

3 health units:

+.3333

19 pips at 3 health ratio...a sigificant drop to the +1
the price you pay for SAIs...(excluding the frostwing fly on lower units)

Monsters:

+0

Even money

here you get a 1 in 5 chance for SAIs...or even better on some...
2/5

So the question is....
Why do players use Rares so much?

The are far less in pips?

Answer....SAIs and more to the point SAIs are immune so to speak from allot of things like spells and other SAIs...

So why would increasing unused monster potentials to say +1
(that is they have 4 faces of normal icons which are considered 5 health)
make players use them more over monsters with 2 sets of SAIs...
since rares are used widely for their SAIs over commons...it would seem
that a kicked up monster would still be ignored, since it's counterpart, the SAIs filled monster is now kicked up as well.


So I'll post a chart. using Plus (+) to show normal icons over the 1:1 ratio

+7
+7
+4
+3



The Sprite Swarm has 7... that's 3 more that 4 commons
the Coral Giant Gains 4... that makes it even with a common as far as ponts to health.
============================================


+4

+5

+4

+4


============================================


+5
+6
+7
+5


Death Naga +7 Shocked Mighty Troll +5
============================================


+4
+7
+7
+6

============================================


+6
+5
+7
+7


============================================


+2
+5
+7
+2
+7



============================================


+6
+4
+6
+5
+7

============================================













============================================















============================================
















============================================













============================================












============================================


Last edited by DEEPBLUEB2 on Sat Feb 09, 2013 7:51 pm GMT; edited 13 times in total
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:29 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

My next suggestion is to consider the idea of the 5 point normal SAI...but in a spell.

Monster Growth:

Target one of your monsters.
Add +1 to any normal non ID icon result until the end of your next turn.

So this excludes artifacts since they produce more consistent results.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:42 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEEPBLUE2, I am sorry but your post is all but impossible to understand for someone which do not speak english as first language, like me.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:45 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Over time I will finish the chart...but it's there as a reference.

Anyways...
back to the progression.

Commons are your best choice in math...
although some spells target them...

so Uncommons are then your best choice...although their icon distrubtion varys to the point where you don't get a double face...

then the rares...

trade off...
you lose pips for SAIs...

monsters...
tapers off to even.

So...
I don't think a permanent pupm up will truly solve playability...
as players have show...(though the greedy algorythm)
SAIs trump pips.

Having monsters pumped up sparatically will create a mess.
The spell concept will, however allow the very same concept to function,
and may bring non used monsters to the table,
but that still does not solve the lack of play of the lower dice...
another thread for that.

I do like the concept, but I don't think it should be forced on the entire monster realm... as I think it will as I said... soop up the already overplayed monsters, and leave the underplayed monsters still unplayed, unless the greedy algorythm helps just a handfull...
but I don't think this will be a global solve.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TheLazyhase
common



Joined: 16 Jan 2013
Posts: 208

blank.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:07 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

DEEPBLUEB2 wrote:

I don't think a permanent pupm up will truly solve playability...
as players have show...(though the greedy algorythm)
SAIs trump pips.


You're oversimplifying the issue way too much. Monster have way more problem than "not enough pips" and more advantage than "more SAI". Also, the gap between monster and other dice is not all that big ; that's why any buff have better be a small one.

And the overplayed monster are not significantly improved with that ; the beauty of the thing is that the monster that benefit the most are the weakest one. Fireshadow, phoenix and troll all have very little benefit from this change.

Also, any solution that imply a spell is a very bad one. Magic is already too useful.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DialFforFunky
rare



Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: Groningen

netherlands.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:23 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheLazyhase wrote:
You're oversimplifying the issue way too much. Monster have way more problem than "not enough pips" and more advantage than "more SAI". Also, the gap between monster and other dice is not all that big ; that's why any buff have better be a small one.


Though I'm sure it is not intended, I think you might want to take a second look at the tone in which you are posting. The people here know what they are doing, and have dedicated a significant part of their lives to sustaining Dragon Diceâ„¢. Though I don't know who you are, or how involved you are with Dragon Diceâ„¢, but I think the people you are debating with have enough merit to their names to (at the very least) add a bit of 'I think that...' and 'probably, if...' to your post. Again, I do not think the tone is intentional, but you come across as being a bit harsh.



F
_________________
717
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
AC
common



Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Posts: 317
Location: DC GMA

usa.gif
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 11:34 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lazyhase: Your argument is specious. You are cherry-picking considerations to effect confirmation with your own biases. However, posters in the forum have demonstrated themselves in large numbers to be intimately familiar with the full suite of facts regarding the advantages and disadvantages of investment strategy as it applies to army construction in Dragon Diceâ„¢. It will be essentially impossible, therefore, to convince them that what they know is untrue. You are arguing against a strawman. It is unclear whom you are trying to persuade.

I am unfamiliar with any non-literal interpretation of numbers that would be applicable to this discourse.

You present an alleged fact, which you then immediately undercut in the same sentence. What is your source for this fact? Did you poll players around the world? Did you take notes at a tournament? Did you just browse the on-line games? What is your sample size? What is your margin of error? How did you define "underplayed"? We are given no reason to believe this is a fact. It is an invention.

Honestly, the principal reason I gave this idea a second glance was that piMaster chimed in. The idea may be sound, but the presentation is lacking.

I understand the language barrier may create difficulty. I am not aiming to be combative. I am suggesting that if you seek to convince the audience of the value of your idea, you take the time to present a wholly logical argument.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
Kevsquatch
dragonmount



Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Posts: 43
Location: Cascade mountains, Washington

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 1:53 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a forum, not a critique, lets all remember if not for the cultivation and implementation of certain 'house rules' most of the games we love would not exist today. Im sure the lot of you are much more pleased with Pathfinder or 4th ed. than you were with 2nd ed. D&D (those of us who remember that madness at least). The discount regarding magic items is direct evidence of such evolutionary phenomena in the realm of Dragon Diceâ„¢, as is the fact that Charge no longer exists as a melee option. Countless other changes have occurred in spells, S.A.I.s and racial abilities. And I'm sure the introduction of Dragonkin, Eldarim champions, Eldarim acolytes and new hybrid & white dragons have all caused a stir among certain 'purists' of one degree or another along the line. In all honesty if you had told me back in the late 90's that Charge would be eliminated from the rules I would have farted in your general direction.

The game has improved despite of and because of these changes. Every new concept brought to this game that has been met with cries of 'heresy!' or any idea that has initially been picked apart upon first glance due to contention with a single bullet point or the tone in which somebody is posting is typically an idea worth running through the scientific method in the form of playtesting. Change, even positive change, frightens all hominids at first, then the benefits eventually become quantifiably concrete. Funny I know, but as a dude once said, 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism'. I like this idea TheLazyhase has presented, I and my friends will try it and see how it goes. Keep innovating everyone, lets keep this game as entropy free as possible.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message
DEEPBLUEB2
monster
Stockholder



Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 7865
Location: Des Plaines, IL

usa.gif
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:02 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also thought that the spell presented...
monster growth..based on the 5 health icon concept...
might also be a pumpable spell.

So in this case, the monsters with the most non-sai faces would benefit more, making them a better choice.

Monster Growth: 4

Target one of your monsters.
Add +1 to any normal non ID icon result until the end of your next turn.
Multiple casting can affect the same monster.
Back to top
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    SFR, Inc. Forum Index -> 3.01 and later Rules Discussion - Locked All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group