[Analysis] I "think" I found a way to calculate the Danger a characte represents

[dindenver]

Basically, I calculated how much changing one stat effected the damage per turn and how long the conflict would last.
Then compared those values relative to "Average" characters in a conflict.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AoGF0nJQdKAOdEtJQVZ0ajd3bFVwZnU1ZmxzR09Zb1E&hl=en&output=html

Note: "Technically" these calculations are conflict-type agnostic. Meaning they should be the same for Social and/or physical conflicts.

Please let me know what you think or where my calculations are flawed.

[Belial666]

Maybe as a guideline but doesn't work for directly comparing characters.

First of all, there are multiple attack skills and multiple defense skills per character. One character might have fists 3, weapons 3 and guns 3. Another may only have guns 5. Your system says the first is more dangerous. However, the second is actually stronger in combat.
Ditto for defenses - especially when stunts come into play. Somebody might have Athletics 3 and Endurance 3 while another character has Guns 5 and a stunt to use guns as a defense vs all physical attacks. Now he effectively defends at 5 where sb else would use athletics and endurance. By your calculations, the guy with two skills at +3 is better than the guy with one skill at +5, even though he uses a single skill for all defenses...

Secondly, you are seriously understating the value of initiative. Someone who attacks first with a strong attack could effectively take out somebody else in a single blow. I.e. a wizard blasting somebody. Or a superstrong enemy grappling you and then slowly squeezing you to death without you being able to escape.

Third, as you say, your sheet is conflict-type agnostic. This means that a very powerful combat brute may well cost more than a low-power White Court vampire even though the vampire usually wins - because they bring mental conflict into a physical fight and the brute cannot easily defend against mental conflict.

Fourth, you make no mention of speed and range. Say you have a Knight of the Cross with ridiculously high melee skills and a vampire with a gun. The vampire, due to its speed powers, can consistently get away from the Knight and still attack. The Knight will never even get a single attack in melee before the vampire shoots him dead.
Ditto for flying enemies with ranged attacks such as breath weapons, magic and guns.

Fifth, the wildcards. It matters little how strong an enemy is if a warlock can use black magic to bypass its toughness. Or a Knight of the Cross using "All Creatures Are Equal" to do the same.

[luminos]

I'm not at all sure how to interpret that chart.  One thing that bothers me is that it seems to say a point of armor is worth the same as a point of defense.  If this is true, there is a serious flaw in the analysis, as armor reduces the value of an attack, whereas defense can both reduce the value of an attack and reduce the likelihood of the attack succeeding, negating all damage.

[dindenver]

@Belial
  I would recommend (and didn't document this, sorry) that for the offensive skills and defensive skill, you would use one skill, the highest rated.
  Also, I think, to be used as a proper GM tool, you would have two numbers, P-Value and S-Value. Meaning one for Physical conflicts and one for Social conflicts.
  Yeah, Initiative is always hard to evaluate, it only effects the first round in a one round combat and it only effects the last round in all others. Also, I thought, with Consequences, you can't single shot kill... though I may be wrong. I have done about 10 conflicts and all of them were about 3-6 turns.

@Luminos
 Well, the problem is, the math bears this out the reality is if your defensive skill is one higher, tou should be taking one less stress per turn. Likewise, if your armor is 1 higher, you whold be taking one less per turn. The spreadhseet I used has all average values (including roles), so it does not do a great job of accounting for those times that defense does it's thing and Armor never gets used. But it also does not simulate the attacker rolling awesome and neither one is enough.

[wyvern]

Well, the problem is, the math bears this out the reality is if your defensive skill is one higher, tou should be taking one less stress per turn. Likewise, if your armor is 1 higher, you whold be taking one less per turn.

The thing you're not taking into account there is weapon ratings.  Consider, for an extreme example, a fight where everybody involved is an artificer throwing around weapon: 10 attacks.  Suddenly the difference is a lot clearer; a point of armor is one less stress on a hit.  A point of defense, by contrast, is both one less stress on a hit *and* a chance to take *ten* less stress because the attack missed.  Alternatively, consider a fight where one guy has armor 10, defense 0, and the other guy has defense 10, armor 0.  Who's going to take more damage when the attacker has an attack skill of, say, one, with a weapon rating of nine?  That's right - the guy with armor will take damage sometimes, while the guy with defense just doesn't get hit.

These are, admittedly, extreme examples, but the same principles apply to more normal situations.  Armor and defense are equal in value if your attacker doesn't have a weapon rating - but if they've got even a weapon: 1 dagger, defense starts to become more valuable.

[dindenver]

EXAMPLE:
Two characters are facing each other, are they balanced? Let's find out:
I Lung
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AoGF0nJQdKAOdEFJRnJRVExueGxjSGxXOWw0dWZoemc&hl=en
Pertinent Data:
Relevant Skills:
Alertness: 2
Athletics:
Empathy: 2 (+1 for Mark)
Fists: 5
Presence: 6 (+1 for Mark)
Rapport: 5 (+1 for Mark)

Physical Weapons: None
Social Weapons: None
Physical Armor: None
Social Armor: None
Physical Stress: 4
Social Stress: 4, +1 Consequence

Aidan Berringer
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AoGF0nJQdKAOdGc3RzJiYU5GVm9qanBJRVF6dnJKaFE&hl=en
Relevant Skills:
Alertness: 4
Athletics: 3
Empathy: 0
Intimidate: 1
Presence: 3
Rapport: 0
Weapons: 5 (+1 for Sword)

Physical Weapons: Sword (Weapon: 2)
Social Weapons: None
Physical Armor: None
Social Armor: None
Physical Stress: 4, +1 Consequence
Social Stress: 4

Comparing Values in conflict:
I Lung:
Physical Rating: 48 = 2 (1xAlertness) + 15 (3xFists) + 15 (5xAthletics) + 16 (4xStress)
Social Rating: 63 = 2 (1xEmpathy) + 18 (3xPresence) + 25 (5xRapport) + 16 (4xStress) + 2 (2xConsequence)

Aiden
Physical Rating: 62 = 4 (1xAlertness) + 15 (3xWeapons) + 4 (Aspect from Holy Touch) + 6 (3xSword) + 15 (5xAthletics) + 16 (4xStress) + 2 (2xConsequence)
Social Rating: 25 = 0 (1xEmpathy) + 9 (3xPresence) + 0 (5xRapport) + 16 (4xStress)

  So, based on that, I Lung has an edge in social conflicts and Aiden has an edge in physical.

  As a GM, you can use this information to balance encounters to meet the strengths and weaknesses of the characters involved.

[dindenver]

@Wyvern,
  I do fully understand that. The issue is, there is no real way to model this in my spreadsheet. If everyone rolls average, then the armor and weapons don't have such dramatic effects.
  I think Armor should be discounted in value (maybe value it at 4 instead of 5), but I am not sure yet.

[Belial666]

OK. Can you do me a comparison of the following characters;

Bruiser

+4 Althletics, Fists
+3 Endurance, Alertness
+2 Might, Discipline
+1 Presence, Intimidate
plus Mythic Strength as power.

and

Speedster

+4 Althletics, Guns
+3 Endurance, Alertness
+2 Might, Discipline
+1 Presence, Rapport
plus Mythic Speed as power.

[dindenver]

Bruiser
+4 Althletics, Fists (+3 from Strength)
+3 Endurance, Alertness
+2 Might, Discipline
+1 Presence, Intimidate
plus Mythic Strength as power.

Physical Rating: 72 = 0 (1xAlertness) + 18 (3xFists) + 18 (3xStrength Damage) + 20 (5xAthletics) + 16 (4xStress)
Social Rating: Not enough info I think, but based on the info provided, 15 = 0 (1xEmpathy) + 3 (3xPresence) + 0 (5xRapport) + 12 (4xStress)

Speedster
+4 Althletics (+3 from speed), Guns
+3 Endurance, Alertness (Equivalent to +6)
+2 Might, Discipline
+1 Presence, Rapport
plus Mythic Speed as power.

Physical Rating: 78 = 9 (1xAlertness) + 12 (3xGuns) + 6 (3xWeapon 2 for gun) + 35 (5xAthletics) + 16 (4xStress)
Social Rating: Not enough info I think, but based on the info provided, 20 = 0 (1xEmpathy) + 3 (3xPresence) + 5 (5xRapport) + 12 (4xStress)

  Looks like they are pretty evenly matched. Speedster has an edge. More so if he can tag the Bruiser with Aspects if he can engage him socially before the physical conflict breaks out.

[Lanir]

Wouldn't it be better to focus on comparisons instead of generalizations? Whip up a system for comparing offense vs defense? I'm just not sure how well this would help to gauge a conflict. I've seen plenty of other systems try to rely on theories of rating overall effectiveness and they can really be off the mark by quite a bit. Although I will say that since attack and damage are much simpler and relate directly to each other in Fate that does make it a lot less likely to be as far off the mark as I've seen the challenge rating system in D&D be (for example).

[dindenver]

Lanir,
  This is my first crack at playing FATE. I am just trying to get a grip on how to make different and interesting opposition that won't turn my group's PC's to paste or get wiped before they can be a reasonable threat.
  If you have a better technique, please share it. I tried asking around, but I just got very general advice, that if I followed it, all the opposition characters would be cookie cutter.
  So, please help if you can.

  Otherwise, I will just tweak this until it works reliably for me.

[Belial666]

And that's the problem. It says they are pretty close but I've run some combats with that setup. The speedster has a good edge in the cage match and he always wins any fight he has some space to move. Any fight; the bruiser simply can never touch him because he can attack and move out of range every single time. It doesn't matter how high the bruiser's skills and damage are when he can move only 1 zone and attack while the speedster can move up to 4. Even with a skill of 0, the speedster would eventually (over a couple dozen exchanges) make the kill.

Also compare someone with Mythic Strength to someone with Mythic Toughness, same skills for everything else. MS gives +6 damage and thus costs 18 pts, plus 9 for the bonus to Might. Mythic Toughness gives Armor 3 and 6 stress boxes thus 27 total - which makes them equal.
But in a fight between the two, the stong guy just pushes the tough guy off-balance with might (place an aspect on him) then grapples and holds on until he wins.

[dindenver]

Belial,
  Well, maybe that is just a matter of tactics? I mean, the Speedster has a gun, the Bruiser doesn't. But with his massive strength, can't he throw for tons of damage?
  I guess I can add a Range metric and a movement metric. It wouldn't be that hard, I just wasn't sure if it was a factor in Fate...

  Also, I don't really know the rules for grappling. Or how often it happens in real play. In other games I have played, Grappling was overly complicated and avoided in combat because of its general lack of effectiveness. Generally, Grappling only has the effect of disabling the attacker and the target. Useful in some cases, but not many.

[Belial666]

You can only throw stuff one zone, two with a stunt. The speedster can shoot and move three zones more than the bruiser. Even with tactics, the bruiser loses as long as the other guy can avoid him. If they both have guns, he loses again because his strength doesn't help with the guns.

Grappling requires tagging or invoking an aspect or consequence. So it is one round to apply the aspect then grapple the following or spend a fate point to grapple outright. It uses the Might skill and it immobilizes and deals stress.

[luminos]

A direct comparison between two combatants abilities in a fight that just takes in to account attacking and defending, nothing else, could have some value.  It would ignore maneuvers, blocks, declarations, grapples, supplemental actions, and a whole slew of other things that would make the comparison pretty meaningless, but it would be an interesting at a glance type of thing IF:

1.)  We knew the computations behind the arbitrary values, and we knew the reasons those computations were chosen.
2.)  The analysis actually managed to get the basics right

This fails on both accounts.  On 1) we are given arbitrary numbers, and an arbitrary formula and told that it works.  On 2), we can clearly see that even without explanation its wrong, because it values armor and defense as equal, when this isn't even remotely the case.  I suspect that some kind of binary non-dynamic analysis was done, that only compared things against each other one at a time, rather than the way these skills all interface together.  In a one dimensional analysis, it would be possible to think that armor is as good as defense because you aren't accounting for the way weapon value stacks with attack value, and the way this effects the results of defense rolls or such.

A correct analysis probably wouldn't be able to give us a single number for each stat, because dynamic interaction would make different things valuable in different circumstances.  Facing a high weapon value low attack value opponent?  High defense is a hell of a lot more valuable than a high armor.  Is a combination of high attack high initiative worth more than a combination of high defense high armor?  That answer can't be given by simply taking each skills arbitrarily assigned value and calculating from there.  You have to know what combinations work well together, rather than what works in isolation.