Affinity successes instead of dice

Instead of the affinity bonuses giving you a dice bonus, it would instead give you a success bonus. Flipside is that, because successes are more powerful than dice or even damage, you'd get an affinity point once every 10 levels instead of every 5 (that is, ability to upgrade a current affinity or start a new one).

Reason for this being (as AnubianDragon pointed out) is that eventually, bonuses from affinities will build up over time, and you may have to calculate 28+9+5. Some of you can do that instantly; others use the calculator to figure it out. And then this delays the actual roll itself, making the battles last longer. On the other hand, if it were to affect successes instead, the roll would be much faster, and the difference in successes is typically a lot smaller than the dice rolls, so it may only be 8+3 or something like that.

Since this is something that directly affects gameplay, I am putting this suggestion up to a vote.

• Those in favor of the switch to successes and once every 10 levels, vote "Successes".
  
• Those in favor of staying on dice and once every 5 levels, vote "Dice".

Do note that successes are more consistent than dice; I'd also alter the critical hit system to adjust to affinities being "every 10 levels".

Feel free to debate/post your opinion/argue/etc. regarding this subject.

One possibility, if Sephiroth's willing to implement it, would be to allow dice rolls like the following:

Code:Select All

$roll 28+9+5 10
$roll 8+4-6 6

Under theory, this would be relatively simple in most standard languages, but I'm not sure how the bots are implemented. This serves two purposes:

1. No need for $calc for these simpler calculations, thus minimizing roll time.
   
2. Gives a sort of accounting, showing the values they're adding up; this should help prevent misreading errors, since you can see each component separately.
   

Successes.

You may not need to change the levels at which affinities are acquired, though. You have to keep in mind that affinities could work AGAINST you in certain situations, causing you to lose successes or even deal negative damage to your opponent if you aren't careful. It's like using Ice Arrows against Ice Bats. It just isn't going to work. But Fire Arrows will consistently do more damage against Ice Bats.

Since the weighted probability of success is [-.1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .2 = .6] 60% per die rolled, a dice-based affinity bonus actually makes the weapon more likely to hit, as well as increasing the amount of damage that it deals [a value based on the successes rolled]. Adding successes after the roll, on the other hand, keeps the weapon as accurate as one that does NOT possess an affinity, but makes its damage more variable.


Well, that's my input anyway.

A clarification on the difference between dice, damage, and successes. To me, successes are the strongest bonus, damage second, and then dice, though technically, dice are the strongest due to 10's.

Dice give a 1/10 chance of -1 successes, 3/10 chance of none, 1/2 chance of +1, and a 1/10 chance of +2. That said, for every given dice, you have a variability of anywhere between -1 to +2 successes. Technically, these are the strongest, but it's based on chance. By having bonuses on dice, you have an increase in chance.

Damage is the difference in successes. However, do note that damage isn't calculated until the attack is deemed successful.

And then a bonus in successes guarantees consistency in success rate and damage. There's no chance of +2, but then there's also no chance for 0 or -1 either.

I value successes as at least twice as powerful as dice due to consistencies, if not stronger. Also, I see affinities as influence. Not necessarily "hey, I counter you, I win in one shot by default" or "oh crap, I can't hurt you no matter what", but something that provides a noticeable difference. So for those of you wondering why (if changed to successes) affinities are gained every 10 levels instead of 5, there's my reasoning. I'm fully aware that you can be countered, but I don't want to make that reason for automatic victory or loss. Even a +1 can make all the difference.

Once again, thanks to everyone for your opinions and input, even if I seem to dispute against your reasoning a lot. I'm iffy on actual gameplay system changes, so my stance on it is fairly defensive.


By the way, I'm not voting unless the vote ends in a tie. Closing poll on Thursday, 11/10 at 6:00pm EST (aka, when I work on finishing up preparation for Termina Quest).

Actually, I thought about it more and the 'successes' method should increase affinities every 7 levels instead of every 5.

Statistically, a single die is worth .6 successes (I did the weighted probability calculation in my previous post). A bonus success, however, is worth 1.0 successes, an increase of 40%.
40% of 5 is 2, which means changing Affinities to straight successes should increase their gap by 2 levels (hence every 7 levels).


From a straight statistical standpoint, Variance does not alter the overall damage potential of an attack. If one person hits 10 out of 10 times for 15 damage each, and another hits only 1 out of 10 times for 150 damage, they've both dealt the same amount of damage over the same amount of time. The latter person likely rolled fewer dice than the prior, but since their weighted statistical potential was identical, their end outcome is identical.


My point is this. With the correct mathematics the two different types of rolls could be made statistically identical. Therefore, the only reason to stay with an old method OR switch to a new one is preference.

I would add that strategically there is some difference between more random and less random (or not random at all), even if their weighted potential ends up being the same.

For example, let's say you have two characters:

The first is a big bruiser who is unreliable. He does anywhere from 1-10 damage her hit.

The second is a lightweight who is very accurate. She does 3 damage without fail.

Strategically, it's best for the unreliable character to attack first. This gives the team a better idea of how much extra damage to pump into that enemy. They can use small amounts of guaranteed damage to ensure that no damage is wasted. In other words, weaker and more reliable characters can "clean up" after the main damage is done.


Now, this is an extreme example that is NOT the same as the ZURPG system, but I hoped it would illustrate my thoughts better.

As for which I'd prefer.... hmmm. In almost every system I've used, elements multiply or divide success by a factor, rather than adding (or subtracting) dice (or damage). So, either method is a change.

My gut is telling me stick with dice bonuses. Successes have their place, but if you use them too often, the system could become way too predictable.



AFTERTHOUGHT:
If a direct "no dice changed" effect like successes is used, I think it would MIGHT make more sense to add/subtract from the damage dealt. However, not all abilities will deal damage, so a way of converting that number into other effects would have to be concocted.

Poll is over, successes win in a 7 to 3 vote! If you're wondering where my position stood... it was a draw for me. Good thing it didn't turn into a tiebreaker because then I'm not sure I could've decided.

Updated Rules & Knowledge Thread:

• Combat System --> Critical Hit System --> Zero Weapon/Bonus Damage
  
• Affinities --> Affinity Cycle of Attack
  • Affinities gained every 10 levels instead of 5. Do note that if this seems underpowered over time, I'll drop it to every 8 levels. It will not go lower than that. (AnubianDragon, 0.6 * 1.4 = 0.84. However, 0.6 * 1.6 = 0.96, a little closer to 1.0 successes)
    
  • Replaced all instances of dice with successes
    
  • Attack Distribution changed
• All profiles updated