Who actually uses the multiplicative Modifiers from Powers?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

You could at lease read what he was quoting. It's fairly obvious he was talking about multiplicative.

He was quoting me, Dinadon. I think I know what it is I was saying.

While, yes, he was saying that you can't get a Multiplicative Modifier-based ability down to 20% of base cost if there are any enhancements, he then said that 'it doesn't take more enhancements than limitations for that to happen'. Since the thing he was quoting was talking about comparing the cost of a Multiplicative Modifier-based ability to an Additive Modifier-based ability, I assumed the 'that' he was referring to was a Multiplicative Modifier-based ability being more expensive than an Additive Modifier-based ability. As such, I showed an example of where an Additive Modifier-based ability required more limitations than enhancements in order to get the price down below a Multiplicative Modifier-based ability with the same enhancements/limitations.

This isn't entirely clear, since you don't explain what you mean by more or why you're suddenly combining enhancement and limitation costs. So, to clarify you're saying:

If you have +X% in enhancements and -Y% in limitations, then so long as Y is less than 80 then the multiplicative version will be cheaper. However, if Y is greater than 80 then it depends on the value of X as to which will be cheaper.

This is almost correct. It should be 'if Y is greater than 80 and X is greater than 400, then Multiplicative Modifiers will be more expensive. If Y is greater than X, then it depends upon the values of Y and X as to which will be cheaper.'

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

So what's your difference between multiplicative modifiers and Multiplicative Modifiers? I use them interchangeably.

Multiplicative Modifiers work as in Powers - add up the Enhancements, apply them, then add up the Limitations, and apply them.

Little-M multiplicative modifiers multiply together each time, rather than adding up the enhancements and limitations first.

For example, if we've got an advantage worth 100 base points with modifiers of +10%, +20%, and +30%, as well as modifiers of -10%, -20%, and -30%, we get these results:

Multiplicative Modifiers: 100*(1+0.1+0.2+0.3)*(1-0.1-0.2-0.3)=100*(1.6)*(0.4)=64 points

multiplicative modifiers: 100*(1+0.1)*(1+0.2)*(1+0.3)*(1-0.1)*(1-0.2)*(1-0.3)=100*1.1*1.2*1.3*0.9*0.8*0.7=86.4 -> round to 87

Additive Modifiers: 100*(1+0.1+0.2+0.3-0.1-0.2-0.3)=100*1=100

[Dragondog]

Originally Posted by Langy

Multiplicative Modifiers work as in Powers - add up the Enhancements, apply them, then add up the Limitations, and apply them.

Little-M multiplicative modifiers multiply together each time, rather than adding up the enhancements and limitations first.

For example, if we've got an advantage worth 100 base points with modifiers of +10%, +20%, and +30%, as well as modifiers of -10%, -20%, and -30%, we get these results:

Multiplicative Modifiers: 100*(1+0.1+0.2+0.3)*(1-0.1-0.2-0.3)=100*(1.6)*(0.4)=64 points

multiplicative modifiers: 100*(1+0.1)*(1+0.2)*(1+0.3)*(1-0.1)*(1-0.2)*(1-0.3)=100*1.1*1.2*1.3*0.9*0.8*0.7=86.4 -> round to 87

Additive Modifiers: 100*(1+0.1+0.2+0.3-0.1-0.2-0.3)=100*1=100

So multiplicative modifiers (as you use the term) is a house rule rather than something published by SJG.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Dragondog

So multiplicative modifiers (as you use the term) is a house rule rather than something published by SJG.

Yes what more it a house rule that SJG did look at be decided not to use when the added what the call Multiplicative Modifiers as an optional rules, that more people instead of trying mudded the watter call 'true multiplicative modifiers' not just 'multiplicative modifiers'

[Black Rose]

IMO, the two biggest drawbacks to small-double-m -- as opposed to large-double-M and AM:

1. It is "more complex" than the alternatives. I admit I have not fiddled with it much (or at all, really), so I don't know if the order in which the modifiers are multiplied affects the final total. I'm sure it doesn't, but it feels like it would, and frankly, all that extra multiplying doesn't appeal. Granted, since I came over from HERO, and that's how Limitations are applied (there becomes a point of diminishing returns; a -1 Limitation cuts the total by half, while a -2 cuts it by 2/3rds, and so on) I should like it, but it seems that point costs get a bit high already.
2. It is more expensive than the alternatives. Looking at the examples given by its proponents, part of the "appeal" is that the point costs for heavily-Modified abilities are higher than MM and AM. That makes giving a "more expensive=more accurate" result part of the whole reason for doing this in the first place. Much of why I like MM and AA is that they reduce point costs in ways that seem reasonable to me. YMMV and all that.

Everyone else, of course, can go their own way. So long as they note on their sheets how they did their math, in case we game together. ;P

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Black Rose

It is "more complex" than the alternatives. I admit I have not fiddled with it much (or at all, really), so I don't know if the order in which the modifiers are multiplied affects the final total. I'm sure it doesn't, but it feels like it would, and frankly, all that extra multiplying doesn't appeal. Granted, since I came over from HERO, and that's how Limitations are applied (there becomes a point of diminishing returns; a -1 Limitation cuts the total by half, while a -2 cuts it by 2/3rds, and so on) I should like it, but it seems that point costs get a bit high already.

The order of multiplication does not matter. That is, multiplication is commutative, similar to addition.

It is more expensive than the alternatives. Looking at the examples given by its proponents, part of the "appeal" is that the point costs for heavily-Modified abilities are higher than MM and AM. That makes giving a "more expensive=more accurate" result part of the whole reason for doing this in the first place. Much of why I like MM and AA is that they reduce point costs in ways that seem reasonable to me. YMMV and all that.

Small-m-m is not necessarily more expensive than the alternatives. It can actually be cheaper than either MM or AM - for example, you could apply two -80% limitations to an advantage, resulting in a final price of 4% of base cost. Small-m-m tends to result in 'fairer' values for abilities if you're using general limitations/enhancements that can apply to any ability, since it treats every X-point ability the same, no matter how it was built. Both MM and AM have the problem that they treat a [20] point ability built with enhancements and limitations extremely differently from a [20]-base cost ability.

Originally Posted by Dragondog

So multiplicative modifiers (as you use the term) is a house rule rather than something published by SJG.

To be more accurate, that's how other people use the term - I was simply answering for them. Prior to my previous post, I was purely talking about Multiplicative Modifiers, and I haven't spoken much about multiplicative modifiers.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

that more people instead of trying mudded the watter call 'true multiplicative modifiers' not just 'multiplicative modifiers'

Actually, I don't use that because it constitutes a baseless insult to the variant that got published. Basically the same reason I picked Hawthorne, not Tubbs, to nickname the default GURPS magic system after. I dislike both, but I dislike them on their merits.

Originally Posted by Black Rose

It is "more complex" than the alternatives.

Depends on whether you consider multiplication "more complex" than addition and subtraction. Personally, I find multiplication easier/quicker/simpler, but I'm autistic :J For most people it's indeed more complex.

Barring rounding errors, all orderings are equivalent. Since even additive is a pain without electronic aid, I just use all the false precision of the calculator or float type, and then rounding error will be several orders of magnitude below 1 point :J

Originally Posted by Black Rose

It is more expensive than the alternatives. Looking at the examples given by its proponents, part of the "appeal" is that the point costs for heavily-Modified abilities are higher than MM and AM.

I think you're looking at examples of where multiplicative "solves" a case where additive is too cheap; you can take a cheap ability(like a 1 tox Innate Attack) and enhance it into the stratosphere in order to pay a hundred points under additive for something that's worth more like a thousand.

If, on the other hand, you have someone with no understanding of how to cheat at GURPS and walk them through building a complex ability, it will probably be similar under multiplicative and additive, but might be more or less expensive. Note that Langy's "here's some modifiers" example ends up cheaper under multiplicative.

Originally Posted by Black Rose

Everyone else, of course, can go their own way. So long as they note on their sheets how they did their math, in case we game together. ;P

Yeah, you may've noticed earlier me listing things like "ROF: 10(×2)" :J

[Yako]

Originally Posted by Langy

Multiplicative Modifiers almost always guarantees that your abilities will cost less than they do in the base system, not more.

If an ability has only limitations or only enhancements, it'll cost the same. If an ability has any amount of limitations less than -80% as well as some enhancements, it will cost less. It's only if an ability has more limitations than enhancements OR more than +500% in both enhancements and limitations that an ability may cost more.

A 'fix' to make it so that Multiplicative Modifiers works with >-100% limitations is to make it so you subtract any amount greater than -80% in limitations from the amount of enhancements - basically additive modifiers while an ability has >-100% in limitations until it gets down to -80%, then -80% thereafter.

Seconded and that is the same way I handle the really big limitations which you cannot avoid. Mainly because subtracting any extra limitations from the enhancements is a much worse deal anyway and thus the least abusable of all methods (some suggest for example to apply any limitations above 80% AFTER every other limitation has been applied, closer to the true multiplicative method but rather abusable)

@Darekun: Well, both MUNCHKIN and the ability you mentioned use a modifer I never would allow in the RAW form: Rapid Fire.
If you even add accurate, well, of course you can forget balance then, rapid fire is already broken beyond words, adding modifiers to further abuse it only can be a disaster.
With ignores DR i see much less of a problem, ignoring DR is only very marginally useful on small attacks, otherwise just stacking up damage often trumps it anyway.

And isn't MUNCHKIN against the rules anyway, I mean, it combines area attack with rapid fire after all which by god doesn't make sense at all.

Well, aside from rapid fire, I can only really think of huge area effects which truly ARE too cheap wiht aditives or Multiplicative Modifiers as presented in powers and the latter only if you truly manage to get to one point abilities or the like...

No, I think the cost spiral upwards by completely multiplicative modifiers is a bit too crass...

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Yako

And isn't MUNCHKIN against the rules anyway, I mean, it combines area attack with rapid fire after all which by god doesn't make sense at all.

There actually aren't any rules which say you can't have both Area Effect and Rapid Fire on the same attack, as far as I can remember. In fact, some RAW weapons effectively have both - for example, the rapid-fire grenade launchers in Ultra-Tech.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Langy

There actually aren't any rules which say you can't have both Area Effect and Rapid Fire on the same attack, as far as I can remember. In fact, some RAW weapons effectively have both - for example, the rapid-fire grenade launchers in Ultra-Tech.

I can't think of any grenades that use Area Effect instead of just being explosive.