>>23369158>And I'm explaining that it's not a good idea.You just don't like it because you're taking issue with one thing.
>So you want to play a game where a whole lot of nothing happens?Attacking and hitting is everything, right? Bet you never even thought how String Shot or Paralysis might even work or even un-evadable moves.
>I can't calculate numbers when you won't provide any hard details. So please show how it could work.Don't bother calculating numbers when there is no groundwork for the game, dumb ass. I'm not providing hard details because I'm not making the game, I'm suggesting an idea. Obviously if I were crafting a game there would be details, but I'm not making one.
>You also implied movement was more than one squareI implied that the grid size wasn't set. You can't even read. I said:
>You don't know how big the grid is, you don't know how big the area of effects areAgain, I understand how increasing movement per turn, a bigger grid, smaller attack sizes would lower accuracy. Likewise, larger areas of effect, moves that restrict movement, and other debilities might work to reduce accuracy.
>Based on what, what would be better?Not having a deck of cards would be better. That's my opinion and you can stop being an elitist idiot and sharing yours with me.
>Way to split two halves of one point into separate points, that's not disingenuous at all.It would be a redundant point which is why I was confused. When you said
>Cards are by far...so you'll already have cards in your game.You're saying either:
>If you have cards in your game, cards will be in your gameNo fucking kidding
or
>You're GOING to have cards in your gameYou can't force me to implement a mechanic I don't want into a made up game that I'm not even making. Fuck off.
>seriously go look up YomiYou clearly don't understand my initial reason for the game being a realistic simulator.
I'm not discussing hypothetical hit rates.
