Well, better than a poke in the eye with a pointed stick, but being bumped up from Failure to Success (Loser) is, in the aggregate, less beneficial than other bump-up permutations.
> If you're a mastery level above your opponent you don't win every time, but
> you definitely win more often than not, and when you lose you lose less.
> Which sounds eminently reasonable to me.
So far, so good, but those are kinda weak 'reasonableness' constraints. You concede/reiterate my point about the statistical fishiness, plus there's the Mild Oddness that such bumpups can make the 'normal' win outcome (Success/Success) impossible...
> However, a rating of 10w against 10 is unlikely to lose an extended contest
> anyway
True, but a _lot_ more likely than a 18w vs. an 18, by the same calculation with a binomial blowup thrown in for good measure. And it could be the the party with the target number disadvantage had a large AP advantage, in which case it might become a good deal less marginal...
> So, i don't see the above as a problem to be fixed, especially not
> if a proposed fix would introduce more numbercrunching or
> complications.
Since I've already suggested several that are hardly unreasonable by such a criterion, I shan't trouble to repeat them.
I admit I'm not greatly worried by the above; my concern would only rise if it were likely that players would notice the above sort of effects, to the extent of indroduce the dreaded 'game mechanical attack' where they make choices influenced by/designed to influence such factors... I'm not familiar enough with the system in play to know if this is the case (and of course, in any event, YPMV...).
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail