Weapon Power Factors

[K]

I'm writing up this guide to assumed properties (all the stuff that you don't have to write into your lists if you don't want to deviate from the norm), and the first section is on weapons' power factors.

Up until now, the policy has been that any "special" weaps (basically any weap with a name/effect, anything that isn't just "iron sword") is assumed to have a power factor that is way above the average for a "normal" equivalent. In the hands of the same user, this "Bonecrusher" hammer deals way more damage than this ordinary mallot. The Stingstick hurts way more than it would if it had just been carved out of a branch, the Antlerangs hurt more than normal boomerangs, and so forth. I'm thinking of removing this assumed property and just making "special" weapons the same as "normal" weapons except on what is written differently (power factors, effects, et cetera are still subject to what you write).

Let's look at the logical side, firstly. What makes more sense? Honestly, I can see it working either way. If you are superior to the normal person, you probably have a superior weapon, too. Well, we have that in either case. Should we assume that it's superior in power, or just superior in whatever ways that are described? In either case, we can have weapons that are equivalent to the norm, weaker, or stronger to our desires. Is anyone seeing this differently?

The only other reason to change or leave it is for simplicity's sake. Changing it would seem to simplify things, but a lot of us have already gotten used to the old way, I think, so maybe not. We wouldn't have to change any gameplay from what has already occurred, and, since I'm the only one who's made weak weapons that are "special," I'm the only one who would have to rephrase a few weap descriptions. So, which is simpler for you?

Help me figure this out, and I'll open a poll, if you want.

[Dragon of the West]

I see what you mean, it would make sense to have the weapons power factor this way mainly due to the simplicity. The only thing the writer would need to worry about is what makes the weapon tick you know? Like in the Elder Scrolls series, an Iron Sword would have a damage of 10-12 but another Iron Sword known as Frost Sword has the same power factor but has a freezing effect along with a movement speed debuff to the opponent and things like that.

[Learpabru]

I could be wrong, but it seems like you misunderstand this. What exactly would be simpler?

[Se Taisho]

I think that the new way would be a little simpler. Now that Caleb explained it to me, the old way is pretty simple, too, but the new way would make things really easy.

[Ceodore Wolfgang]

Now that i re-read it over and over i actually see what you mean. Correct me if im wrong but all weapons would be treated equal in terms of power factor (unless specified), but because they have different abilities or enhancements it will just be based on the enhancements right?

[Dycedarg]

No. Well, yes. Sorta'. In either case, if you don't specify a power factor, it's assumed to be average. What's changing is our look on the average. You know how an "average" stat of a character is way above the average for a normal person, right? Right now, special weapons are the same way. I'm considering making it so that this is not the case for weapons.

In these examples, key words/phrases are in bold.
Now

Iron Bow: This is my cleverly-named, 2.5-foot long iron sword. Aside from the incredible strategy that can be derived from its naming scheme, it's an ordinary, iron sword.
I read: PWR = AVG-normal (way below AVG for special weaps) sword. Durability = standard (dependent on materials and make, just like any normal weap). Composition = iron, likely an alloy with unremarkable minerals. Effects = none. Elemental affinity = none. Other = none.

Coral Tridents: Unlike the Coral Sword, these are more of the disposable weapon category. They are also water-elemental, and they're made of a tough kind of coral, but they don't auto-repair, they're not that tough, and they're not very strong. They're good for throwing, and that's about it. Speaking of which, they're not as aerodynamic as they are hydrodynamic, but they're pretty aerodynamic.
I read: PWR = AVG-normal polearm (a bit stronger than Iron Bow, since lances, halberds, and the like inherently hit a bit harder than swords). Durability = somewhat heightened. Composition = noticeably hard variant of coral. Effects = none. Elemental affinity = water (100%). Other = dynamically savvy for throwing through air and moreso through water.

Flametongue Mk-IV: Made from an assortment of generic fire gems, this fire-elemental sword was dropped by a mighty salamander. It's slightly stronger than what you'd expect for a good sword. When it strikes an enemy that is resistant to fire, the resistance level is halved in calculations (e.g. A 66% fire-resistant foe will take damage from this weapon as though the resistance was 33%. This is not a change in the target at all; it is a compensating power-up effect of the sword, so it's not like their resistance drops with every hit.), but this is not applied to its final effect. Finally, with every successful finisher attack (that being defined as a significant attack that ends a combo), there is a chance for a spell to be cast on the enemy(ies) that was/were hit (with my MAG, of course, but with no cost). Die roll: On a 15-sided die, 1 = Fire on closest victim, 2 = failure, 3 = Fira on farthest target, 4 = Ignis on self, 5 and 6 = failure, 7 = Firaga: explosion from self casting method and Firaga: flamethrower casting method on central victim, 8 and 9 = failure, 10 = Firaga: flamethrower method on central target, 11 = Firaga: explosion from self method, and 12 through 15 = failure.
I read: PWR = slightly above AVG-special ('cause this is clearly no Iron Bow) sword. Durability = standard (since it's not specified). Composition = various fire gems (resulting in fairly high durability, but far from unbreakability), all unremarkable. Effects = LMNTal resistance negation (* 0.5) and secondary attack - spellcast - averagely 6/15 success rate, fair odds setup. Elemental affinity = fire (100%). Other = none.

Jigiat Idtado Vhejk: Tixxi's wind-elemental spear subtracts 1/10th of the target's SPD from its DEF for its damage calculations.
I read: PWR = AVG-special (It's not too descriptive, but it has a special look, a special name, and a special effect. If it stabs like a duck, thrusts like a duck, and gores like a duck, it must be a behemoth.). Durability = standard. Composition = unspecified; to be clarified soon. (I'm strongly considering making composition notations mandatory, 'cause it can make a massive difference in battle.) Effects = DEF negation (subtract target's SPD * 0.1). Elemental affinity = wind (100%). Other = none.

If changed
See above examples. All of them have just one variable changed, namely the power factor. The new values are these:

I read: AVG

I read: AVG

I read: slightly above AVG

I read: AVG

AVG is to be defined as what AVG-normal was. In other words, the latter two weapons just got significantly weaker (difference of "way above AVG" and "AVG"). The last one is exactly as strong as the disposable Coral Tridents. Hence, I would re-write the power factors for the latter two weapons to something more like "way above average" in the descriptions in order to compensate for this change.

Do be clear: If you re-format power factors accordingly (Like I said, just tack on an extra "way above average" to their existing power factors, for those special weaps that you want to remain especially strong.), this change will not actually change power factors. It will only re-format them. We still write up our own power factors! We'll just be writing them from a single base, not a normal base and a special base.

Follow?

[Ceodore Wolfgang]

OK i follow what you mean on the weapon power factor. Basically if you want a special weapon to be stronger than a normal weapon just tack on "way above average" and then bada-bing, bada-boom we have a special weapon that's stronger than normal, right?

[Tori Keheraht]

Yeap.

[Ceodore Wolfgang]

OK i gotcha now :D

[Tori Keheraht]

So. . .? New way or old way?

[Kaito Inaki]

New way

[Laola]

Mm-kay. I'll wait to see what Bianca has to say about it.

[Twenty-Seven]

I, as well, believe the new way would be better.

[Tori Keheraht]

It would seem that the consensus is pretty consistent. I've only managed to nag a few other players (past, present, and future) to read and respond, and they've told me that they're slightly inclined to the new way, as well. I suppose that this is settled, then. I'll revise things and take this into account when writing that guide to assumed properties, but I'm too busy, right now, so there's still plenty of time for others to opine before I get the proverbial ball rolling. I mean, things are always open to user input, anyway, on Sein, but there's still a time window for the "sooner" part of the "better sooner than later" mantra.

[CH]

Personally, I am for the new way. It makes more sense to those starting out, and it would not be difficult for others to adjust to.