Season 46, Week 2 - It's Menardi/Maxim revengefic week in Heavy! Oh god.

[Talaysen]

70% PDur for default Poco? Super said that Peppita's damage is 1.5 times the average (using OK's topic) Is that 150% damage or am I doing this wrong? ;p

...well that explains a lot.

Generally an average attack is 40% damage against an average durability target.  So 1.5x average would be 60% damage to an average durability target.  Since Poco is ~70% durability, he would still live.

Re: scaling arguments.

Raquel with Equites for uber Godlike.  That is all.

[OblivionKnight]

Godlike

Elc (AtLC) vs Ness (EB) - Elc.  Invincible, MP nuke, etc.  Not even Gutsy criticals help here!
Deis (BoFs) vs Asgard (WA3) - Boot Asgard.  XF form is way too broken.  Anyway, it wins EASILY.
Zenon (Disgaea 2) vs Brahms (VPs) - Brahms. 
Gilgamesh (FF5) vs Rolf Landale (PS2) - Gilgamesh.  ;_;

Heavy

Geshp (SF2) vs Yuffie Kisaragi (FF7) - Geshp.
Menardi (GS) vs Maxim (Lufia 2) - Maxim.
Dryst (Brig) vs Berserk (WA1) - Belselk.
Cecil Harvey (FF4) vs Fenril (OB) - Cecil.

Middle

Poco (AtLC) vs Peppita Rosetti (SO3) - Poco.
Red Wizard (FF1) vs Lexis Shaia (Lufia 2) - Lexis.
Zidane Tribal (FF9) vs Kimahri Ronso (FFX) - Zidane.  Thievery one-shots.
Feraligatr (PKMN)  vs Jill Fizzart (FE9) - Jill.  Brave Axe with Stun.  Smites.

Light

Imoen (BGs) vs Chelsea Torn (ToD) - Imoen.
Olan Durai (FFT) vs Suo (VP1) - Suo.
Sue (G1) vs Guile (CC) - Guile.  Is Magus.
Tai Ho (Suikos) vs Chat (ToE)  - Chat.

[Nitori]

Godlike

Elc (AtLC) Damn you Pyro~ vs Ness (EB) - ;_;
Deis (BoFs) PC BOLTX vs Asgard (WA3)
Gilgamesh (FF5) SPOILAR vs Rolf Landale (PS2)

Heavy

Geshp (SF2) lol shf2 vs Yuffie Kisaragi (FF7)
Menardi (GS) Infinite aiel hype vs Maxim (Lufia 2) Infinite aiel hype

Middle

Red Wizard (FF1) vs Lexis Shaia (Lufia 2) Wrench man
Feraligatr (PKMN)  vs Jill Fizzart (FE9) Flying Meeple

Light

I can't vote in the BEST DIVISION? Hatbot is a monster.

[Hyper Inferno]

Well, since Yuffie uses a level 3 limit instead of a level 4, that could conceivably help her there, since level 4's take forever to get.

[DjinnAndTonic]

Problem is that this is an issue consistent to -most- games. Random enemies' HP just isn't a good measuring stick on average for how damaging the cast members are because they get blown up by stiff breezes. Xenogears, Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, Final Fantasy 7, Xenosaga 1, SaGa Frontier, Wild ARMs 1, Wild ARMs 2, Wild ARMs 4, Dragon Quest 8, -every single Suikoden ever-, Final Fantasy Tactics, Shadow Hearts 1, likely Shadow Hearts 3, Fire Emblems and so on and so on. The list is huge and ever growing.

This is by no means 'most games'. And in the cases of FF7, WA4, and the Suikoden and FE series, I -know- that just being a few levels lower will give you a reasonable balance against enemy HP. And as for SaGa... the enemies scale up with you and even very late in the game there is considerable threat from the randoms...

Your defense is that not comparing to average enemy HP is "unintuitive". However, doing that comparison makes the damages between PCs often not matter, because everybody does varying shades of OHKO in that case - which is far more unintuitive, because it completely disregards the synergy and general functioning of the PCs in the games, and even creates the monstrosity of inflating PC casts because their enemies fail.

Yes, that's my defense, because it makes sense to me. Unless the DL has a rule that mandates the use of PCHP, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed the hold the view that makes sense to me. IF the DL wants to use this mandate, then I'm fine with that, and stat topics may as well become an official part of the site. To me, comparing against endgame enemies with characters at appropriate levels serves the same balancing function as PCHP. If characters are at the appropriate levels, then the synergy of PCs should, by definition, still be preserved. Likewise, PCs should not become massively inflated due to weak enemies. If anything, casts with weak enemies may be hurt by this due to the cast having to be taken at lower levels.

PC damages should be compared amongst themselves, not against enemies.

DL Bosses are taken against PCs, it's not an illogical leap to take PCs against enemies.

This just doesn't work for comparative measures, unless you're fine with a system where everybody OHKOs everybody and the few people who don't because they happen to be in a game where enemies can take a hit weep and fail. That's just entirely unrepresentative of the casts themselves. We already use enemy stats for most comparative measures, so they're not unrepresented in that sense. However, using -their- durability as the killpoint threshold doesn't work if you ever want to create any sort of a sensible duelling setting. It's an arbitrary method that we use, sure, but you might want to give it a little bit more thought before dismissing it as unrepresentative and unintuitive. The alternative is even worse.

The alternative just has less documentation. All of the stat topics have been written with PCHP in mind, so it's understandable that most people use that as their measuring stick for PC casts. I may well end up doing so myself for simplicity's sake, but the Endgame Enemy HP Comparative Method is what made the most logical sense to me because it would be using the game's mechanics more directly. This method -does- lower the levels of casts whose enemies essentially give more experience than they are worth. But this kind of arbitrary level-lowering doesn't seem to be any different in terms of balancing than the artificial 2.5HKO imposed on average duellers that PCHP creates.

Also, I have never said PCHP was unrepresentative of a duelling casts' worth/balance. In fact, I have repeatedly stated that I didn't think it was bad method. In fact, if most of the DL chooses to use this method, you should just universalize it since apparently no other balancing method is satisfactory.

Note that either way, someone (whoever came up with it/understands it best) should definitely make a post in the stat topic forum fully explaining the PCHP concept/reasoning for newbies. It would definitely speed up the learning process.

-Djinn

[Tide]

If characters are all uniformly OHKOing endgame enemies and it's taking endgame enemies 20 hits to kill, then I'm positing that this team of characters is overlevelled.

This really is just a regurgitation, but if all characters are OHKOing random enemies at end game, this is more a fault of the game than it is of the characters being "overlevelled". Using Wild ARMS 4 as an example, enemies were designed to be frail, but really damaging on certain spectrums. Every single PC in that cast can OHKO randoms at end game. Yes, it requires a bit more knowledge about the game and set up, but they can do it. However, that's the way the game is set up. I might be the biggest Arnaud fan on the forums, but you will probably never see me hyping him as having OHKO damage against average. It's not about over or under levelled, the game is designed that way, and the randoms reflect it. To propose that WA4 PCs are overlevelled because of a way the randoms are designed seems really silly. Especially since there are Lucky Cards + EXP mults, leading the level average to be slightly higher in actual practice.

Further more, you get really awkward cases. Enemies that prefer physical damage would suffer against Jude/Raquel and even Arnaud to an extent. But magical damage would only run into a brick wall against Yulie mainly. So now what? If there are more end game enemies that use physical damage, thus making 3/4s of the cast look bad ass, are we going to suddenly hype them as all being overlevelled if at every other point in the game, enemies mainly used magic? Of course not.

Not to mention that in certain games like WA4, PCs have individual strengths and weaknesses. If you had a hypothetical situation, where you can't see the enemy HP metres, are you still going to choose Arnaud to damage someone over Raquel, who easily deals 2x more damage? Comparing PC cast damage against themselves over enemy HP makes more sense as well because usually, it will better reflects the things that PC are actually better at doing.

But it is. In this one case, Grandia, it may be impossible to have low enough level characters to evenly match the endgame bosses. In this case, I would apply a theoretically lower-level cast. I wouldn't particularly like doing it this way as it goes against the gameplay mechanics, but this is one arbitrary decision based off of one game's extreme situation. It's not that different of a decision as the arbitrary 'kill point' that's been artificially imposed on -all- games.

I'm not saying PC HP is an innately bad way to balance a cast, I'm just saying that it's less intuitive than comparing against average endgame enemy HP. In Grandia's case, this apparently doesn't work, so a theoretical view would have to be taken for consistency's sake.

Snow already pointed this out, but it happens in more games than you think. All of a sudden you're doing 8x more work because so many games have to be taken at a case by case basis. Should WA4 PCs be taken at level 1 then? They can still kill enemies with lots of high end equipment. Should S5 PCs be taken at level 50? You end up with a lot more arbitrary cases, and holding consistency becomes MUCH more difficult.

This is by no means 'most games'. And in the cases of FF7, WA4, and the Suikoden and FE series, I -know- that just being a few levels lower will give you a reasonable balance against enemy HP. And as for SaGa... the enemies scale up with you and even very late in the game there is considerable threat from the randoms...

That's actually a pretty big list. Keep in mind that Snow likely didn't list all of them AND as he pointed out, it is GROWING. It's also not necessarily true that being a couple of levels lower solves the problem. Some games allow naturally more twinking than others. Some games have massive damage cannons. You can be level 1 with Equites and Raquel will still OHKO every random in existance. You can use a lower level in S5, but giving PCs Power/Boost/Crazed Runes will still have them OHKOing enemies with ease. Then you run into FUN cases like FF8 where enemies are level scaled but using junctions still make them either fail horrendously or become the hardest bosses in FF history.

Yes, that's my defense, because it makes sense to me. Unless the DL has a rule that mandates the use of PCHP, I'm pretty sure I'm allowed the hold the view that makes sense to me. IF the DL wants to use this mandate, then I'm fine with that, and stat topics may as well become an official part of the site. To me, comparing against endgame enemies with characters at appropriate levels serves the same balancing function as PCHP. 

You're entitled to hold whatever scaling you would like. But this method just seems to bring a lot more problems than it attempts to solve. You end up having to take a look at a case by case for LOTS of games. You get lots more arbitrary situations. If you can somehow find a way to define it all in one piece though, be everyone's guest! People in DL have different ways of scaling/interpreting things. But we're pointing out that the method you're proposing is only going to lead to more work, confusion and disagreement. Set the kill point higher/lower if you don't like it!

If characters are at the appropriate levels, then the synergy of PCs should, by definition, still be preserved. Likewise, PCs should not become massively inflated due to weak enemies. If anything, casts with weak enemies may be hurt by this due to the cast having to be taken at lower levels.

Some PCs growths don't particularly take off until several levels in. Suikodens are known for this. Gavaya for example, isn't that good until level 55 or so. Some PC skill sets don't become developed until later levels. If you hold back WA4 levels, Yulie suddenly takes longer to learn key abilities like Sacrifice or Quicken. If you're trying to lower levels so that battles are "reasonable", you also need to define what reasonable means. Does my party have to be half dead and all MP out? Or should I just use a little bit of my resources since they are randoms?

But this kind of arbitrary level-lowering doesn't seem to be any different in terms of balancing than the artificial 2.5HKO imposed on average duellers that PCHP creates.

Not true. Setting 2.5x average damage as a kill point means that all games abide to that 2.5x. Its easy to see an follow. Using level lowering, you end up running into cases where you're wondering how many levels you need to lower by. Again, do I take WA4 PCs at level 41 since that's a minimalist approach? Level 1? Enemies can still be one shotted there. Do I take FF7 PCs at level 29 because even under a LLG approach with materia, most bosses are still fodder? etc. Those are extreme cases, but I think you get what I'm trying to say. Saying, let's lower all levels of these games by say 10 doesn't work well when you run into games that have weird levelling systems (CC) or have lower natural levels as a basis (Legend of Mana for NPCs as an example).

[Monkeyfinger]

There's no way to "universalize" a voting convention. People will vote how they want and no one can do anything about it other than try to present their viewpoint.

As for just falling in line with the majority because of how the documentation is set up? Yeah, I know the feeling. I've never been vocal about it, but... while I love how the DL uses game mechanics as the basis for voting, I've never liked how far the core members take the obsession with uniqueness. My personal line is at limited/one-of-a-kind things that everyone can use, like Knight of the Round - I agree that no one has a strong enough claim to get something like that in the DL, since there's nothing suggesting that they can keep it to themselves. Things like low-level materias in FF7, basic runes in Suikoden games, the spellsets from Lufia 2, though... in MonkeyDL, everyone would get those, and would actually resemble an optimal in-game build that didn't involve special treatment. I fucking hate cases like the Suikodens and Grandia 3 and FF7 and the Baldur's Gates where the PCs are notably different in the DL, but the differences don't look anything like what set them apart in game. But it's a pain in the ass to vote that way due to how the stat topics are set up, and a lot of people would grouse over it, so I usually don't do it! (There are some cases, though, where I have to hold my line, such as FF1.)

[Talaysen]

Well, there's one thing missing here.  While being at lower levels may make PCs more balanced against enemies, it makes them less balanced against themselves.  If natural endgame level is 50, and you have to take PCs at 30, well, those stats aren't very representative of themselves against each other, since you're going to be 50 at the end.  You also get cases where they can't use stuff they normally get at endgame because you decided to take lower levels.

There's also this fact:  WHAT determines what levels you use?  The right level is when an average attack does x% amount of the enemy's HP?  Well then.  Let x = 40 and you have DL-scaling... at weirded out levels.  Levels that are not very representative of the characters.

I don't know.  Using levels other than natural endgame levels strikes me as... INCREDIBLY unintuitive.  I don't see the logic there at all.

(Also lol to the fact that you can be overlevelled by skipping every random and only fighting bosses.  Are you serious?)


There's nothing wrong with trying to use a different view.  It's just that... this one has many, many problems, which have been pointed out repeatedly.

[DjinnAndTonic]

You're entitled to hold whatever scaling you would like. But this method just seems to bring a lot more problems than it attempts to solve. You end up having to take a look at a case by case for LOTS of games. You get lots more arbitrary situations. If you can somehow find a way to define it all in one piece though, be everyone's guest! People in DL have different ways of scaling/interpreting things. But we're pointing out that the method you're proposing is only going to lead to more work, confusion and disagreement. Set the kill point higher/lower if you don't like it!

I imagine when the concept of PCHP was developed, a lot of work went into making stat topics that revolved around it. It's an arbitrary way to balance PCs. Taking PCs at an appropriate level for endgame enemy HP might take just as much work to document as all the current stat topics have taken. However, taking PCs' damage against enemy HP reflects how bosses are viewed in the DL as well, so I would prefer this scaling method as it differentiates between PCs and bosses less.

Regardless of the work it would take, it's still a valid, balanced view to hold for scaling, and I think it's more intuitive overall than the arbitrary 2.5 average damage kill point of PCHP.

I'm not saying I won't eventually fall in line with everyone else and go with what the documentation uses - I probably will since it's less work for me. But I would prefer if I could use my method of scaling.

-Djinn

[Ultradude]

I'll throw in that it also feels fairly unintuitive in comparison. It would set a lot more arbitrary numbers to not really change much of anything at all in the end. In fact, no matter what percentage of enemy damage you set as "normal" it would be equivalent to simply scaling damage comparative to the rest of the cast against something other than 2.5X. There really isn't any difference at all, except that you have to screw with levels, denying characters skills that they should by all rights have by the end of the game.

Of course, Grandia is the extreme case, because regardless of what the creators intended they failed miserably at it, and what you're suggesting is kinda counter-intuitive to the idea of trying to make characters more as they are in game. The failure of what the creators intended is what any average player experiences, and even LLG games would be incredibly sad. You can have the lowest level possible allowed by some games and STILL destroy end game randoms at a whim in rare cases, so what then? Give the characters negative levels?

If you still want to go for it, then go ahead, but it really feels like it would be so much more complicated for almost no real difference from just taking a different multiplier for PCHP.

[Yakumo]

You can use whatever view you like, but take a second and step back and just look at it for a minute.  It really doesn't look as balanced to me as it seems to be for you.  What do you do with PCs from games with frail enemies and level-based skills, then?  WA4 as an example again.  If you lower their levels arbitrarily to set up your scaling, what do you do about the skills they're now forfeiting?  (Or the HP/MP, in this case, but you see my point.)  Also, when you think about it, what you're doing isn't all that much different than the 2.5x average version anyway.  You're still assigning an arbitrary durability value, just in your case you're rearranging the game mechanics to set it, which has to be done on a game by game basis and has several problems that have to be worked out depending on the game in question.  The 2.5x average damage version is still arbitrary, yes, but it's consistent.  No offense, but I don't see any way you can get consistency from your version without a hell of a lot more work than any match in the DL would ever be worth.

Ninja'd by Ultra saying pretty much the same thing, but there you go. <_<

[hinode]

Also, there are games where enemy levels scale up with PC levels, so no amount of levelling you do will adjust PC damage to the exact level you desire.

I can think of one srpg that combines this with an extremely low damage rate both ways, to the point where 8-10HKOs are the norm aside from a very few attacks, most of which require either support or a lot of turns to use and all of whom are DL non-factors.

[Talaysen]

Another thing.  You're only doing this for damage?  Why not for PC durability too?  WA4 PCs for frail (even MORE frail because they need to be low level to not overkill the enemies).  Grandia PCs for durable.  Oh.  How about speed?  WA4 PCs for slow and frail (same note applies).  Grandia PCs for... well just durable I guess.

I mean, if you do it for damage, you might as well do it for durability and speed and whatever else.  And in that case, sometimes there's NO way to find a good level to use.  Take WA4.  Too high and you overkill everything.  Too low and you just get overkilled by everything and are slow (oh and you still probably overkill everything anyways).  Actually, the PCs at endgame levels are slower on average than endgame enemies.  What about that?

Regardless of the work it would take, it's still a valid, balanced view to hold for scaling, and I think it's more intuitive overall than the arbitrary 2.5 average damage kill point of PCHP.

Valid?  I guess.  If you're consistent.  Though the method itself seems somewhat inconsistent.  Inconsistent views are not valid.  But I'm not going to bother arguing that.

Balanced?  No.  It's not balanced.  And we've pointed out over and over why it's not.

Intuitive?  Also not.  I explained why.  Other people explained why as well.  Did you read them?


Oh yeah, and if you want to differentiate between PCs and bosses less?  Take PCs against bosses.  That'll go over well.

[DjinnAndTonic]

...well, whatever, I had thought it sounded good in theory.

In my defense, it really does seem intuitive to me to take characters' damage the way it is in-game: against endgame enemies' HP. After all, if I remember the character as being useful enough to OHKO most randoms in-game, it would make sense to transfer that to the DL, only taking the opponent's relative durability in account. Additionally, this is quite clearly how bosses are viewed in the DL, so I had thought it natural to take PCs the same way.

When this idea was challenged because 'endgame enemies fail', my kneejerk reaction was that characters are simply overlevelled - and in many RPGs, this method could work.

What I failed to understand was the sheer number of RPGs where 'endgame enemies fail' - thus destroying balance and consistency. I had thought this could be remedied for a few games by artificially lowering level, but apparently not. There may be some natural way to remedy this problem, but I can't think of it.

----
As for taking characters' speed and durability this way... didn't Snow mention that the DL already does this?

-Djinn

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

The DL does this in the sense that we use enemy stats in testing - i.e. how much damage does the party deal to average endgame enemies, and such. Also makes sense to have enemy averages for hindsight when you have formulas handy. The characters' evasion/accuracy stats are taken against the enemy accuracy/evasion averages, for an example. They're used to gauge many different things (and, in some cases, boss stats may be used instead for a less failure sample. In FE, for an example, taking only the grunts' average stats, you have say Lyn with nearly 100% evade, and basically everybody dodges a lot). Just doing so for straight damage isn't viable. But their stats are taken into account in that sense.

[Dhyerwolf]

I imagine when the concept of PCHP was developed, a lot of work went into making stat topics that revolved around it. It's an arbitrary way to balance PCs. Taking PCs at an appropriate level for endgame enemy HP might take just as much work to document as all the current stat topics have taken. However, taking PCs' damage against enemy HP reflects how bosses are viewed in the DL as well, so I would prefer this scaling method as it differentiates between PCs and bosses less.

Uh...stat topics and the idea of PC HP aren't linked at all except in damage averages. Stat topics are taken at what the topic maker considers to be end game without over or underlevelling. They were made this way long before we really starting nailing down damages.

[Talaysen]

...well, whatever, I had thought it sounded good in theory.

In my defense, it really does seem intuitive to me to take characters' damage the way it is in-game: against endgame enemies' HP. After all, if I remember the character as being useful enough to OHKO most randoms in-game, it would make sense to transfer that to the DL, only taking the opponent's relative durability in account. Additionally, this is quite clearly how bosses are viewed in the DL, so I had thought it natural to take PCs the same way.

Well yes.  Lots of things sound good in theory, but don't end up well at all in practice.  I've had several such ideas and... yeah, they didn't work out so well.  The DL "standards" are there because they tend to work.  Not always, and you can find holes in them (those holes tend to be where a lot of people differ in views), but for the most part, they tend to strike a good balance between intuitive and fair.

Of course, this doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but just understand that it didn't just come out of nowhere.  It's there because it works.

Also, next time you get a new idea that seems really awesome?  Try and figure out why it's not awesome.  And if there are flaws (well there's always flaws, but if there's big ones), then try and fix them.  If that makes things worse, then, well, the idea's not going to work so well.

That's pretty much what happened in this case.  Seemed like an awesome idea, but there were things wrong with it, and trying to fix those made matters only worse.

What I failed to understand was the sheer number of RPGs where 'endgame enemies fail' - thus destroying balance and consistency. I had thought this could be remedied for a few games by artificially lowering level, but apparently not. There may be some natural way to remedy this problem, but I can't think of it.

Well, as Snow said, we do compare characters to endgame enemies, but also to the other PCs.  Basically, we see how much damage the PCs do to the enemies, and then compare that damage to the rest of the cast.  I mean, if enemies tend to have a lot of physical defense and little magical defense?  Then the mages are going to be higher on the damage chart, just as they are in-game.  If enemies have lots of both defenses?  People with defense ignoring attacks are going to be better off.  If they have high evade?  People with great accuracy are better.  And so on.

It's not that we completely ignore how the PCs do against the enemies of the game, it's just that we measure how effective they are to enemies in the game compared to the rest of the cast.  It sounds long and convoluted, but it's actually simpler than it first seems.

As for taking characters' speed and durability this way... didn't Snow mention that the DL already does this?

In what way?  Against endgame enemies?  Not in the case of speed, no.  For durability, somewhat.  But just like damage, it's also compared to the rest of the cast.

[Clear Tranquil]

Thank you Tallychu~

So ... she's borderline OHKO to average P Dur with her short X - Faerie Friend X - Faerie Friend O > Faerie Friend X combo -

Posting this in case it'll be helpful to people -

From OK -

99 Fury HP Damages: 31794
1) Peppita - 58711 (Short X-Fairie Friend X 125%-Fairie Friend O 175%-Fairie Friend X 225%) [9% HP loss]
2) Nel - 42240 (Short X-Divine Wrath X 125%-Divine Wrath O 175%) [17% HP loss]
3) Maria - 42112 (Short X-Energy Burst X 125%) [4% HP loss]
4) Cliff - 41305 (Short X-Max Shockwave X 125%-Max Shockwave O 175%) [16% HP loss]
5) Mirage - 35555 (Short X-Acrobat Locus X 125%-Triple Kick O 175%-Acrobat Locus X 225%) [13% HP loss]
6) Adray - 25702 (Short X-Emotion Torrent X 125%-Emotion Torrent O 175%-Emotion Torrent X 225%) [16% HP loss]
7) Fayt - 23026 (Short X-Side Kick X 125%-Side Kick O 175%-Side Kick X 225%-Side Kick O 300%) [12% HP loss]
8) Albel - 21827 (Short X-Double Slash of Fury X 125%) [Effectively 0% HP loss]
9) Roger - 17670 (Short X-Star Fall X 125%-Fiery Axe O 175%) [10% HP loss]
10) Sophia - 9791 (Short X-Southern Cross X 125%-Southern Cross O 175%) [9% MP loss]

Now those values are assuming no Berserk + max *hits* for *everyone*~

Let's see what happens by adding the values from powerdanced Faerie Friend (no Berserk) into the mix -

Short X (900~) - L1 Power Dance - Faerie Friend (7000 x 10 (max hits) = 70'000+ HP damage - 700~ x 10 = 7000~ MP damage)

Max Hits+ short X  - 70'900~ HP 7000 ~ MP
9 Hit powderdanced Faerie Friend + short X- 63'900~ HP 6'300 MP

So she has two feasible OHKO points and definitely does if one assumes max hits for everybody.

*muses somemore* I wonder if Poco is 70% P Dur w/o equipping the Guard? *eyes Dyher* If equipping the Magic Book + Cureall instead of Mail + Guard then Peppita OHKO's even without Power Dance (OK's values)?

**

I think Peppita definitely has a strong case for an OKHO in a variety of/various ways. Whether people vote on that or not is up to them though.

I can see people going by average hits based on their in game experiences not just in this case but others if they want. If I were to take that route though I'd be comparing Peppita's damage from average hits to the average hits of the other PCs (for example in game people tend to use Maria at range and Scatter Beam has accuracy issues at range on smaller opponents. This means she's not getting 10 Hits with L10 Scatter Beam whilst at short range she'd get more hits against those opponents) and she'd still probably be above average as a damage dealer due to Power Dance + the high damage modifiers on Faerie Friend *shrugs* That's how it is in game for me anyway~

Fayt's Side Kick? - Has trouble in game connecting all three hits on an enemy smaller than a bus ;p
Cliff's Max Shockwave/Nel's Divine Wrath - Can knockdown which causes the rest of their hits to miss because the enemy is on the floor >.>

I could go on and on <.< Point is trying to figure out average hits for every character in this game would be massive psyducks and everyone would argue about it anyway due to each individual having a different in game experience. So in my book for the DL the characters either have max hits or 0 hits and we all sit down and drink our damn tea ^_^


**

Whilst people are on the subject of airing grieviences over how the DL works well from my point of view it sometimes bothers me how non unique armour with factors are allowed whilst accessories *hides* aren't. Like how in SO3 some characters are allowed elemental resist armours when those armours are as hard as hell to get in game (20%~ chance of being made) but Roger/Peppita/Sophia aren't allowed elemental resist accessories which they can make for themself at a far higher rate >_____> It's been niggling at me too how stat boosts work. I thought people didn't allowed stat boosting equipment in the DL yet Poco's Magic Book raises his MAG stat. I also thought that as a rule people didn't allow storebought accessories that block all statuses either. Maybe I've been picking that up wrong though~

I was being silly before about Tri Emblems being legal because they have ID protection since they are post game but main game Peppita can equip storebought Clone Generators or the Magebane Ankh (30% damage negate by magic users), what do you mean no accessories, she can synth them to her weapon! 

Anyway thanks to anybody that's been explaining this stuff to me (Pyro, Tai), I appreciate it. 

[DjinnAndTonic]

Of course, this doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but just understand that it didn't just come out of nowhere.  It's there because it works.

Also, next time you get a new idea that seems really awesome?  Try and figure out why it's not awesome.  And if there are flaws (well there's always flaws, but if there's big ones), then try and fix them.  If that makes things worse, then, well, the idea's not going to work so well.

Well, unfortunately I don't have any kind of access to chat because Japan hates IRC, so I don't really have any way to check my ideas besides discussing them on the board.

It's not that I have any innate problem with the normal DL views, but I definitely think I hold a lot views that are different from the norm. Part of this is that I'm still trying to peg down what -all- of my views are considering the number of different game systems that I'm trying to force to adhere to a single system and I'm still relatively new at it. For some games, one view seems appropriate, but for others the same view skews things wildly. Trying to find the view that seems 'fair' is difficult and doesn't always seem to fall in line with the standard DL methods. But I guess this is what everyone is doing...

Still... there are a lot of differing views that I'd like to 'try out' that I imagine would have a lot of opposition in the DL but that seem reasonable to me (I honestly thought more people would kill me for the 'Full Limit Meter' view...). Maybe someone would volunteer to be my sounding board sometime to shoot down the more 'imaginative' ones? Could avoid more 2-page discussions taking up space on the board...

-Djinn

[Monkeyfinger]

Full limit meter is an older idea that a few people do use, if I remember right. They're just not that loud about it.

[Clear Tranquil]

Personally I do allow full or partial limit meter/full stock bars/dragoon tranform bars - LoD characters start with 200 SP to me - myself.

[Talaysen]

Clear Tranquil: If you allow Berserk and max hits, etc., then the damage average is going to go up and Peppita STILL isn't going to OHKO.  Yes, she has a borderline OHKO on the current average but that's not using things you're allowing.

It's not that I have any innate problem with the normal DL views, but I definitely think I hold a lot views that are different from the norm. Part of this is that I'm still trying to peg down what -all- of my views are considering the number of different game systems that I'm trying to force to adhere to a single system and I'm still relatively new at it. For some games, one view seems appropriate, but for others the same view skews things wildly. Trying to find the view that seems 'fair' is difficult and doesn't always seem to fall in line with the standard DL methods. But I guess this is what everyone is doing...

You're wrong.  I don't think anyone follows what is considered "standard" completely.  Personally, I kind of view it as a guideline, and change parts of it that I disagree with.

Still... there are a lot of differing views that I'd like to 'try out' that I imagine would have a lot of opposition in the DL but that seem reasonable to me (I honestly thought more people would kill me for the 'Full Limit Meter' view...).

Well, I allow half-filled limit meters myself.  I think a few others do as well.  Full seems kind of excessive to me, while half is much more reasonable.

[Clear Tranquil]

Umm CT wasn't allowing for Berserk just Power Dance ...

It doesn't change the damage average at all because nobody else *has* Power Dance. The current damage average remains the same and nobody else's damage changes. It changes nothing but Peppita's enhanced damage compared to her previous damage~

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

And Peppita's own damage changes the average, considering you can chain Power Dance into other stuff. She can't effectively do that sort of chaining without Berserk anyway, and if you're allowing Berserk for one character, you have to allow it for them all (they all get it), which switches averages around anyhow.

[Clear Tranquil]

*psyducks*

Eh ...  your right, to get a proper picture of it damages would have to be taken from Peppita chaining Power Dance without Berserk into all her other battle skills. I honestly don't think that without Berserk she'd get anything else above 31'000 (not everything has as high base damage modifiers as Faerie Friend >.>) or whatever the exact average was but I suppose it would screw with the damages of characters who fail to hit that average in the first place. Thanks Snow~

I'll agree that for the most part that she can't effectively do Power Dance chaining without Berserk. What I am saying is that in this case she doesn't have to.

OK's combo is 99 Fury short X - Faerie Friend X - Faerie Friend O - Faerie Friend X - No Berserk

The combo I'm allowing for is 99 Fury - short X - Power Dance > Faerie Friend O - No Berserk

With this she hits 70'000+ instead of her previous 58'000+ damage. It just so happens that Power Dance is a better short X battle skill for her than any other skill especially combined with that of her maingame battleskills with the highest base damage modifier (150% HP ph 15% MP ph) Yes it's that good.

Power Dance is only 16 Fury. It works with one Faerie Friend just fine here. That's all she needs >_> I can see what you mean by it not being the most efficient use of Power Dance as applies to her in game but ummm doesn't that apply to everyone else's DL combos? <_< I will take what you said about her other powerdanced skills possibly screwing up the average in mind though. Though it wouldn't surprise me if she still managed to do close to 2HKO to any new averages due to the explosive combination of buffery goodness that is Power Dance with the high damage modifiers of Faerie Friend. Just saying~ That's why I think it's all she needs for this match >.>

I'm not going to allow Berserk for Peppita or Nel or Maria or anyone ever again when it comes to voting in the DL (only for Neph's dungeon) Tal and this topic have taught me how much simplier things are not just for SO3 but for all games to have a kill point and how average damage is 40 to average P Dur, what 1.5 to that is and how borderline OHKOs and 2HKOs etc, are worked out from that. It's a lot simplier for me to get my head around even with still allowing that. I'm only allowing that alone now. I'll post some other powerdanced values in the Peppita wiki or something in the future. I have them already but those are L10 Power Dance and L10 skills >.> I'm not going to be allowing L10 Power Dance for DL voting purproses either from now on.

Eh I give up now. Me sad panda.