Rules talk:Technique Development

So, if we change Excellent bias, we should also change Dismal bias to reflect it.

Excellent bias at 65% base, Dismal at 135% base, then? Or no? Comments/concerns/outright protests/french revolutions? --Ice 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was what the previous idea was, lessening both extremes like this. I'm not sure whether it was 65/135 or 60/140 but either set of numbers works for me (I'm kind of tempted to see 65/135, honestly).

Also, I wish I could edit Rules pages to fix some grammatical/syntactical pet peeves of mine :( Tiryst 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was 60/140, but either one works really. --Ff0ecaf 02:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the original split was 60/140. I'm not sure how much of a difference that five percent really makes. At lower levels, nothing really, but for a 100 day tech you'd be waiting five more days. Do you guys think that's significant? I'm not really sure which I'd vote for, either way, though I'm leaning towards 60%. A 10% mark-up from halving tech day costs leaves a bias that's still pretty potent, but a 10% mark-down from good doesn't seem all that fantastic. --Snackycakes 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

60/140 makes for neater numbers and easier rounding, because it's divisible by 10. That doesn't mean a whole lot, but it means something, especially to the math impaired folks who may take up an Excellent or Dismal bias character and have to do the math themselves.

What usually matters is the gravity of the different options. Mathematically, the 10 and 15 percent variants are exactly the same difference from a half-way cut between the current extreme bias value (50%/150%) and Good bias (75%/125%), which is 12.5% (62.5%/137.5%) , which just makes for stupid, hard to remember numbers. In that sense, both options are of the same merit. What Dev said about things "seeming" fantastic or not fantastic actually is pretty relevant, though. Even considering the law of diminishing returns that governs minor races, we ask for a lot in return for Excellent, and give a lot in return for Dismal. For maximum compatibility, the numbers ought to be closer to what they currently are, rather than a dramatic change. This would cut down on the nerf/buff shock from races who already have the extreme biases, such as Ogres and AIs. Therefore, the 60%/140% probably makes more sense.

Since that makes two of us, and since the rest of us don't really seem to care, I'll let the idea sit a little while (to give everyone a chance to chip in) and then we can push it into rules if nobody has any strong dissention from it. --Ice 08:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

What was the reasoning behind this again? :o I am not opposed to the idea, but I'm curious all the same. --Marcus

People were afraid that Excellent Bias would poke someone's eye out so they started making it out of foam.

I think it had something to do with diminishing returns so people didn't keep taking Enlightenment to get Super Excellent +++ bias and have a tech cost of 5% days. --Ff0ecaf 17:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea was that the extreme biases represent significant powergaming elements in the room, by being a single force that can, to at least some degree, make or break a character. Thus, designing a character (or race, more commonly) that revolves around a certain bias was typically either too good as far as technique learning was concerned, regardless of what other things might counter it (the old mage doubling emphasized this), or otherwise had ridiculous benefits in exchange for having a completely lousy technique bias. Reducing the gap between the extreme biases and the next, less extreme bias is part of a "diminishing returns" philosophy. You still get a good bonus or penalty, but it's not as big of a deal as it would normally be, thus discouraging Dismal race designers from overcompensating and making Excellent bias less of a defining characteristic of a race. --Ice 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rick, anyone with Excellent bias at base can't take an Epiphany. That would get denied so fast heads would spin, heh. But yeah Ice, I certainly see what you mean. So I agree with this rule as well. 60/140 sounds reasonable. --Marcus

That was mostly a joke, but I remember mention of the possibility of it dropping the bias by 15%, then 15%, then 5%, ect. That was probably just hypothetical chattery though. But yeah, it was something about diminishing returns, cause excellent is pretty over the top at the moment. --Ff0ecaf 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)