One might speculate that this is a situation where being double-teamed might be "objectively worse" than being attacked by someone "twice as good" (whatever that means, exactly). That is, not only does the One have to withstand two, equally effective attacks, simultaneously, but one of them is likely to be heavily advantaged in doing so. As opposed to the situation of sequential or badly-combined attacks, which might be objectively worse. This might be the nub of whether a "doubling" ought to correspond to a +5 (lossy), a +10 (nominal), or a +20 (runaway benefit).
> Four onto one therefore seems reasonably to be yet a further mastery,
> suggesting three onto one should be perhaps +13, and the fourth just
> adding +7. After this it seems likely that the multiple attackers will
> severely get in each others way ??? perhaps the fifth +4 and the sixth +2.
If one interpolates a logarithmic progression, with the assumption stated above, one gets the following:
+20: 2 +32: 3 +40: 4 +46: 5 +52: 6 +56: 7 +60: 8 +63: 9 +66: 10
However, I doubt you can get *anything* like nominal, much less beyond nomimal, benefit from much beyond say 4 attackers, in any normal situation.
> If we know two attackers rating as a pair, what should they be
> individually? Well, the one has to basically win two contests, so it
> sounds like each should be at (plus a mastery, minus five = +15). "Minus
> five" because we concluded that for a contest ability +5 equates to
> winning two combats in a row.
What's the interest in working in this direction? This is essentially the same problem, of course, and hinges on the same basic question: how well do the Many combine with each other for a collective effect?
> This is really a little too detailed for the rather free flowing Hero
> Wars rules, but if something is going horribly wrong in what the rules
> say and what feels right to happen, then pulling out the above rules
> might help.
I concur on both sentiments.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail