View Single Post
Old 2012-07-02, 17:20   Link #11
longguilol
Junior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempest35 View Post
Spoiler:
Keeping track of the sub-attributes for each Battle Attribute is a great idea, it will help us come up with a more balanced score. For example, to come up with a score for Speed, a character would have to be evaluated on:

outright moving speed, i.e. mobility
reflexes/reactions
agility, etc.


This will ensure a better score, since it should reflect on the character's actual abilities

However, I have a slight problem with the way "Magical Power" is worded. To the untrained mind, it might sound like an Offensive trait because of the word "Power" being thrown in it. Would "Magical Capacity" reflect the term better? After all, we are referring to how much magic one has at his/her disposal.

Or we could stick with Stamina and make sure that everyone is aware of what it constitutes:

Stamina (Battle Attribute) =

{sub-attributes}
-Magical Power/Capacity (amount of magic at a character's disposal)
-Physical conditioning (skinny & out of shape, vs. fit & muscular)
-Age (Is the character an 88 year old geezer with an aging body, or a 25 year old adult at his prime?)


What do you guys think?

Anyway, I love your Mage Class rankings, I think they're done pretty well. Which brings me to my next idea:

How about we use the finished Battle Charts to assign a score to each character? The score would ultimately be used to rank their Mage level (D-Class, A-Class, S-Class, etc).

But before getting into the actual scoring mechanics, I'll introduce two different scoring methods that we can use.

A 4-corner diamond Battle Chart will be used as an example to keep things simple, with each attribute having a score range of 0 to 10.



As you can see in the above theoretical chart, the character scores 10 points in Offense, Defense, and Intelligence, and 0 points in Speed. So how do we come up with an overall score? Well, there are two methods:

Method 1 - Simple Average: Total Points / Maximum Points = (10 + 10 + 10 + 0) / 40 = 30/40 = 75%

Method 2 - Surface Area: The area enclosed by the points (colored in copper) is exactly half of that of the diamond's full area. So if we were to assume that the diamond has an area of 1, the colored enclosure would have an area of 0.5. Thus, scoring it this gives: 0.5/1 = 50%. Now the margin between 50% & 75% is a significant. What is exactly going on here?

Well, Method 2 (Surface Area) exposes a character's limitations far more aggressively than Method 1 (Simple Average).

A more complicated 7-corner Battle Chart will shed more light:


Using Method 1 - Simple Average: Same score for both. 34/70 = 49%

Using Method 2 - Surface Area: Left (all over-the-place scores): 17% Right (more consistent scores): 21%. A difference of 4%.


Conclusion:

The Surface Area method rewards characters with well-rounded abilities and punishes characters who happen to have very low scores. Whereas, the Simple Average method is just a dumb numerical value and fails to distinguish between well-rounded characters, and characters with very low scores. Also, the chart on the right scored a bit higher than the one on the left when using the Surface Area method since it rewards consistency, i.e., it rewards characters that happen to be more well-rounded ability-wise, than those that have attributes scores all over the place. IMO, the Surface Area method should reflect a character's actual battle performance more accurately.

Alright, now on to the actual scoring mechanics. We could come up with something like:

Score 1 = Simple Average

Score 2 = Surface Area

Final Score = Average (Score 1 + Score 2).


Let me know what you think

Last edited by longguilol; 2012-07-03 at 19:49.
longguilol is offline   Reply With Quote