Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1495989" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>nope. i am attacking claims and using examples.Where did i make that assertion? No offense but i really dont recall it.i thought i was countering an assertion that in hero cost was a good metric for balance, specifically that if two powers or characters had the same cost within a given setting then they would "generally" be balanced.Yo counter this, i have pointed oot some obvious errors in the hero costing and we had the big aoe vs regular debate. buzz, differs apparently fdrom me, you and eosin in that he seems to feel final cost is "generally"  a metric for balance, while we all seem to feel analysis beyond cost is required.i did not ask for perfect. how many examples do i need to post before the notion that maybe "generally" or "most of the time" are not accurate to describe the relationship between total cost and equivalent or balanced or equally effective is even considered? How many casaes of "not in this case" need be profferred before those CLAIMING a thing can actually have their claim be questioned?buzz said total cost was enough for him to bet on. he said it was enough for it to be generally the case.neither he nor i are talking perfect. i am quibbling with the assertion that "generally" the total cost in hero will give you balance determination. That two powers of 45 pts will generally be balanced within the same setting.it seems there is some disagreement on that point. Again, the claim seems to be that the total cost offers more than levels in this regard... that unlike levels it does most of the work for you. if buzz wants to switch over to total cost being only as good as dnd levels, that for both cases, the real test is the comparitive one, i will not disagree at all. reiterating my position... whether its DND or hero or MNM or gurps traveller, the useful informative that is necessary for assessing balance comes from comparisons of things based on effect and result. Neither total points or levels tells you any more, except that levels in some contexts presume collections of like things and standards... you know a 10th level character will have more hit points and better saves than a 2nd level one for instance but do not know whether a 350 character will have more stun or DCV than a 100 pt one.if the above is the case, an agreeable position, thats fine. But then the obvious question arises. Why do all the up front math in HERo if it gets us to the same point, where we now need to do the EnR to determine effectiveness? What did the math get us? What did the extra work net us?The answer seems to be... fun for those who like doing the math.forest & trees.normal area attacks, as opposed to the area drains and nnds which populate hero so much, are a staple of many genres. if thats a case where hero... "ehh well... this is not one of the cases where it generally works" yet it is a reasonably represented power, then the question of how "generally" the cost matches balance arises. egads, thats ugly.yes, as stated earlier.. AOE on attacks in hero that bypass defenses are quite cost effective. Experienced hero player get that.How often do you find area attacks of say EB without nnd and so forth of similar point totals to be as effective as your defense bypassing AOE entangle?rather infrequently would you say?but, do you agree, would you bet that, sight unseen, two 45 pt powers would be balanced?or would you want to see the powers, run some analysis, before you put your money down?[/QUOTE]

Verification