Book 3 - Page 64

Vinny got game

Book 3 - Page 64
Comic - Book 3 - Page 64
Recent posts... (See full thread)
Jacinth and Rubies wrote:

Don't forget: that 1/5400 is for every time you throw a brick - you are not guaranteed a hit if you throw 5400 bricks (this is the case with the Masuda Method in Pokemon for breeding shinies... a 1/1365 chance does not mean you are guaranteed a shiny if you breed 1366 eggs: you can get it on egg 1... or egg 10000+). "Low" odds do not equal reasonable odds, especially in the thick of battle.


We do NOT know if this is true or not. Parsons Bracer needs certain parameters specified. Here in stupidworld, the second and later shots are easier, because you can use the first as a point of reference to readjust your aim for later volleys towards the place you want to hit. Because Parson did not input a parameter into the bracer of something like "Odds of at least one hit after ten consecutive attempts," All we have are the odds of a non archery unit hitting on the first and only try.
Arky wrote:

Also, I reckon if a side started croaking its own soldiers to power up its warlords, the morale and loyalty among the survivors would plummet pretty quickly.


I can think of at least two side setups where it makes perfect sense.

One. A Roman style side with a Gladiatorial Arena. Low level nobodies become celebrated heroes through victories, and and those who reach higher level are promoted to elite knight class units.

Two. A Count Vorloupulous's 2,000 Cooks Army. Parson already speculated a trick of popping unintelligent animal type units that could be harvested for rations. Imagine a side could field units with "Butcher:this unit receives more rations when dispatching a unit with the Harvest command" And/or "Chef:Raw rations this unit prepares are increased by X%"

Popping chattel units for harvesting would become a key side strategy, and the units that regularly did the Harvesting could be more formidable in combat BECAUSE of the exp from the units they kill for food on a regular basis.
Do units get XP from harvesting their own beasts? I wouldn't have thought so.
Xarx wrote:
Do units get XP from harvesting their own beasts? I wouldn't have thought so.


Why not? Is there a reason, or do you just think it is overpowered?
Because in rpgs, the reward is usually proportional to the difficulty. Killing higher-level enemies gives you more XP, and conversely lower ones give less. Now a dwagon may have a high challenge rating in a fair fight, but when all you have to do is tap it, and it can't fight back, that doesn't seem worthy of an XP reward of any kind. If I were writing the rules, it wouldn't be.
Xarx wrote:
Because in rpgs, the reward is usually proportional to the difficulty. Killing higher-level enemies gives you more XP, and conversely lower ones give less. Now a dwagon may have a high challenge rating in a fair fight, but when all you have to do is tap it, and it can't fight back, that doesn't seem worthy of an XP reward of any kind. If I were writing the rules, it wouldn't be.

According to Scripture, analysing one's performance in combat is part of the levelling up process, which would point towards what you are saying. But I also know of two things against it:

1. You cannot gain XP if you retreat from an engagement, regardless of any units you managed to croak.
2. Wanda had Sylvia execute a high level prisoner in hopes of getting her to the next level. In other words, we know it can work. We just don't know if they have to be ordered into barbarian first.

So there's more to levelling up than the challenge.
Xarx wrote:
Because in rpgs, the reward is usually proportional to the difficulty. Killing higher-level enemies gives you more XP, and conversely lower ones give less. Now a dwagon may have a high challenge rating in a fair fight, but when all you have to do is tap it, and it can't fight back, that doesn't seem worthy of an XP reward of any kind. If I were writing the rules, it wouldn't be.


Have you read erfworld? Because the way you think things work is not very erfy at all. What you would have is basically a GM doing ad hoc exp awards based on how challenging it was. If things worked like that in erfworld, most of the stuff Parson tries would not work because they are not "fair" at all.

No, the way Erfworld seems to work is more like a computer game with strict rules that are not patched for every little "exploit" that occurs. Outside of whatever Fate really is, Erfworld is NOT a Tabletop game of D&D with a GM determining what is a "challenge" and what is not on a case by case basis, it is instead like D&D:Neverwinter Nights, with hardcoded rules it follows in determining what is "challenging" and awarding exp.

Honestly, that rule set likely involves the level of units, and not a lot of thought for the "harvest" command at all. Remember, Parson was able to order it used in the face of the enemy, and while the unit was being used, so I doubt there are all the caveats and you seem to assume are there.

We already know from Rob previously saying that the exp costs to level are exponential and not linear in that it would take so many kills of first level units to go so second level, more to go to third level, and killing many more first level units to go to 3rd level, etc. So frankly, getting exp from killing/harvesting your own units is not really going to break the game.

Whether exp is based on comparing your level to your opponent, or everyone is worth a predetermined package of exp based on their level (and other factors) once you gain a few levels, murdering level one mooks will not help you much. It would allow you to have more of your army be level 2 or 3 as opposed to level 1, which can make a pretty big difference if accomplished on a large enough scale.

But you have to trade off to do this, because it ties up production capacity that could be used for something else.

Out of curiosity, are you one of those individuals that post about how Overpowered and Broken it is whenever a new Caster ability is shown in comic or hypothesized in the forum?
Bramble Thorn wrote:
Have you read erfworld?

really?

Bramble Thorn wrote:
Because the way you think things work is not very erfy at all. What you would have is basically a GM doing ad hoc exp awards based on how challenging it was. If things worked like that in erfworld, most of the stuff Parson tries would not work because they are not "fair" at all.

What I would have? The only thing I said I "would have" is a rule that you get no XP for harvesting your own units, and that's only if I were writing the rules, which obviously I am not. I don't know whether it works that way in Erfworld or not; neither do you.

Bramble Thorn wrote:
No, the way Erfworld seems to work is more like a computer game with strict rules that are not patched for every little "exploit" that occurs. Outside of whatever Fate really is, Erfworld is NOT a Tabletop game of D&D with a GM determining what is a "challenge" and what is not on a case by case basis, it is instead like D&D:Neverwinter Nights, with hardcoded rules it follows in determining what is "challenging" and awarding exp.

"Challenge rating" was, yes, a D&D reference for context and rationale, but I'm not of the opinion that there is an actual GM running Erfworld. Though that's not entirely out of the question, it would be an implausibly big job. "Set up the rules and the starting pieces and let it run" seems to be the operating principle here, but that goes far beyond the scope of my little comment, and I'm not sure why you thought otherwise.

Bramble Thorn wrote:
Honestly, that rule set likely involves the level of units, and not a lot of thought for the "harvest" command at all. Remember, Parson was able to order it used in the face of the enemy, and while the unit was being used, so I doubt there are all the caveats and you seem to assume are there.

Honestly, I assume nothing. Caveats? Where?

Bramble Thorn wrote:
We already know from Rob previously saying that the exp costs to level are exponential and not linear in that it would take so many kills of first level units to go so second level, more to go to third level, and killing many more first level units to go to 3rd level, etc. So frankly, getting exp from killing/harvesting your own units is not really going to break the game.

Did I say it would? You may be confusing me with someone else.

Bramble Thorn wrote:
Whether exp is based on comparing your level to your opponent, or everyone is worth a predetermined package of exp based on their level (and other factors) once you gain a few levels, murdering level one mooks will not help you much. It would allow you to have more of your army be level 2 or 3 as opposed to level 1, which can make a pretty big difference if accomplished on a large enough scale.

But you have to trade off to do this, because it ties up production capacity that could be used for something else.

That sounds perfectly reasonable.

Bramble Thorn wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you one of those individuals that post about how Overpowered and Broken it is whenever a new Caster ability is shown in comic or hypothesized in the forum?

Lolwut?
The issue is that harvesting your own unit requires no effort at all, and already earns a benefit because it provided rations. This makes it distinct from executing a Prisoner in both regards:
1) It took effort to capture a Prisoner in the first place
2) Executing a Prisoner yields no measurable reward

So to assume Harvesting would work the same as prisoner-execution isn't really a useful frame of reference.
Sorry to resurrect an older thread but I'm deeply perplexed by the confusion here regarding Albert's guilt. When Albert popped into being he demonstrated his archery special by throwing a dagger directly at his mother which then curved upwards to hit it's target. While I find some of the speculation about Brevis's signamancy and the luckamancy of a miss interesting, I think in this situation the simpler solution is most likely. He's already demonstrated that he's a good shot beyond reason. He defies gravity with the very first throw he ever makes. Rob would have some serious explaining to do if Albert turned out to be a terrible shot.