{"id":26321640,"url":"https://github.com/jonathanhelianthicusdoe/trash_ideas","last_synced_at":"2026-04-18T00:31:26.993Z","repository":{"id":98902848,"uuid":"242492698","full_name":"JonathanHelianthicusDoe/trash_ideas","owner":"JonathanHelianthicusDoe","description":"trash boredom ideas for the socially insane. suggestions welcome","archived":false,"fork":false,"pushed_at":"2020-05-06T08:15:40.000Z","size":439,"stargazers_count":1,"open_issues_count":0,"forks_count":0,"subscribers_count":2,"default_branch":"master","last_synced_at":"2025-07-30T00:04:21.882Z","etag":null,"topics":["balance","balancing","cc-by-sa","creative-commons","game","game-development","ideas","markdown","modification","toon","toontown","toontown-online","toontown-rewritten","toontownonline","toontownrewritten","trash","tto","ttr","video-game","wonkish"],"latest_commit_sha":null,"homepage":"","language":null,"has_issues":true,"has_wiki":null,"has_pages":null,"mirror_url":null,"source_name":null,"license":"cc-by-sa-4.0","status":null,"scm":"git","pull_requests_enabled":true,"icon_url":"https://github.com/JonathanHelianthicusDoe.png","metadata":{"files":{"readme":"README.md","changelog":null,"contributing":null,"funding":null,"license":"LICENSE","code_of_conduct":null,"threat_model":null,"audit":null,"citation":null,"codeowners":null,"security":null,"support":null,"governance":null,"roadmap":null,"authors":null,"dei":null,"publiccode":null,"codemeta":null,"zenodo":null}},"created_at":"2020-02-23T09:53:39.000Z","updated_at":"2023-09-08T18:03:46.000Z","dependencies_parsed_at":null,"dependency_job_id":"4884acc8-7be9-4d16-8cd6-249522c62361","html_url":"https://github.com/JonathanHelianthicusDoe/trash_ideas","commit_stats":null,"previous_names":[],"tags_count":0,"template":false,"template_full_name":null,"purl":"pkg:github/JonathanHelianthicusDoe/trash_ideas","repository_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/JonathanHelianthicusDoe%2Ftrash_ideas","tags_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/JonathanHelianthicusDoe%2Ftrash_ideas/tags","releases_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/JonathanHelianthicusDoe%2Ftrash_ideas/releases","manifests_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/JonathanHelianthicusDoe%2Ftrash_ideas/manifests","owner_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners/JonathanHelianthicusDoe","download_url":"https://codeload.github.com/JonathanHelianthicusDoe/trash_ideas/tar.gz/refs/heads/master","sbom_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories/JonathanHelianthicusDoe%2Ftrash_ideas/sbom","scorecard":null,"host":{"name":"GitHub","url":"https://github.com","kind":"github","repositories_count":286080680,"owners_count":31951233,"icon_url":"https://github.com/github.png","version":null,"created_at":"2022-05-30T11:31:42.601Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T17:29:20.459Z","status":"ssl_error","status_checked_at":"2026-04-17T17:28:47.801Z","response_time":62,"last_error":"SSL_connect returned=1 errno=0 peeraddr=140.82.121.6:443 state=error: unexpected eof while reading","robots_txt_status":"success","robots_txt_updated_at":"2025-07-24T06:49:26.215Z","robots_txt_url":"https://github.com/robots.txt","online":false,"can_crawl_api":true,"host_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub","repositories_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repositories","repository_names_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/repository_names","owners_url":"https://repos.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/hosts/GitHub/owners"}},"keywords":["balance","balancing","cc-by-sa","creative-commons","game","game-development","ideas","markdown","modification","toon","toontown","toontown-online","toontown-rewritten","toontownonline","toontownrewritten","trash","tto","ttr","video-game","wonkish"],"created_at":"2025-03-15T16:17:57.808Z","updated_at":"2026-04-18T00:31:26.887Z","avatar_url":"https://github.com/JonathanHelianthicusDoe.png","language":null,"funding_links":[],"categories":[],"sub_categories":[],"readme":"# garbage/useless tt ideas\n\n\u003c!-- TOC depthFrom:2 --\u003e\n\n- [general attitude/philosophy (prelude)](#general-attitudephilosophy-prelude)\n - [what about other (non-TTR) servers, though?](#what-about-other-non-ttr-servers-though)\n - [contributing](#contributing)\n - [legal](#legal)\n- [gag buffs/nerfs](#gag-buffsnerfs)\n - [toonup](#toonup)\n - [organic toonup](#organic-toonup)\n - [Bamboo Cane](#bamboo-cane)\n - [balancing](#balancing)\n - [trap](#trap)\n - [lure](#lure)\n - [balancing numerically](#balancing-numerically)\n - [balancing mechanically](#balancing-mechanically)\n - [pros](#pros)\n - [cons](#cons)\n - [sound](#sound)\n- [accuracy](#accuracy)\n - [`luredRatio`](#luredratio)\n - [pros](#pros-1)\n - [cons](#cons-1)\n - [`atkAcc` clamping](#atkacc-clamping)\n - [pros](#pros-2)\n - [cons](#cons-2)\n- [facilities](#facilities)\n - [barriers to entry](#barriers-to-entry)\n - [factories: the side entrance](#factories-the-side-entrance)\n - [factory-like facilities](#factory-like-facilities)\n - [bosses (excluding VP)](#bosses-excluding-vp)\n- [cogs and laff](#cogs-and-laff)\n - [limiting laff](#limiting-laff)\n - [laff capping](#laff-capping)\n - [pros](#pros-3)\n - [cons](#cons-3)\n - [nerfing toontasks (and company)](#nerfing-toontasks-and-company)\n - [pros (of lowering max-laff awards for non-task activities)](#pros-of-lowering-max-laff-awards-for-non-task-activities)\n - [cons (of lowering max-laff awards for non-task activities)](#cons-of-lowering-max-laff-awards-for-non-task-activities)\n - [pros (of capping max-laff gain attainable from non-task activities)](#pros-of-capping-max-laff-gain-attainable-from-non-task-activities)\n - [cons (of capping max-laff gain attainable from non-task activities)](#cons-of-capping-max-laff-gain-attainable-from-non-task-activities)\n - [tweaking cog attacks](#tweaking-cog-attacks)\n - [single-target vs. multi-target attacks](#single-target-vs-multi-target-attacks)\n - [nerfing multi-target attacks directly](#nerfing-multi-target-attacks-directly)\n - [pros](#pros-4)\n - [cons](#cons-4)\n - [buffing single-target attacks directly](#buffing-single-target-attacks-directly)\n - [pros](#pros-5)\n - [cons](#cons-5)\n - [attack limiting](#attack-limiting)\n - [pros](#pros-6)\n - [cons](#cons-6)\n - [varying target numbers](#varying-target-numbers)\n - [pros](#pros-7)\n - [cons](#cons-7)\n- [toontasks](#toontasks)\n- [gag tracks](#gag-tracks)\n - [starting gag tracks](#starting-gag-tracks)\n - [maximum of 1 gag track at toon creation](#maximum-of-1-gag-track-at-toon-creation)\n - [pros](#pros-8)\n - [cons](#cons-8)\n - [maximum of 2 gag tracks at toon creation](#maximum-of-2-gag-tracks-at-toon-creation)\n - [pros](#pros-9)\n - [cons](#cons-9)\n - [gaining gag tracks](#gaining-gag-tracks)\n - [lowering the maximum number of gag tracks that a toon can have to 5](#lowering-the-maximum-number-of-gag-tracks-that-a-toon-can-have-to-5)\n - [pros](#pros-10)\n - [cons](#cons-10)\n - [keeping the maximum number of gag tracks that a toon can have at 6](#keeping-the-maximum-number-of-gag-tracks-that-a-toon-can-have-at-6)\n - [pros](#pros-11)\n - [cons](#cons-11)\n- [trees](#trees)\n- [odds and ends](#odds-and-ends)\n - [chat and communication](#chat-and-communication)\n - [Speedchat](#speedchat)\n - [l10n](#l10n)\n - [search; keyboard controls](#search-keyboard-controls)\n - [phrase organization](#phrase-organization)\n - [Speedchat+](#speedchat)\n - [logging](#logging)\n - [bowdlerization methods](#bowdlerization-methods)\n - [message length](#message-length)\n - [non-Speedchat(+) communication](#non-speedchat-communication)\n - [mutes/ignores](#mutesignores)\n - [toon naming](#toon-naming)\n - [governance](#governance)\n- [appendix (a.k.a. random garbage)](#appendix-aka-random-garbage)\n - [why is lure kind of broken no matter how much you nerf and/or buff it?](#why-is-lure-kind-of-broken-no-matter-how-much-you-nerf-andor-buff-it)\n\n\u003c!-- /TOC --\u003e\n\n## general attitude/philosophy (prelude)\n\nTTO/TTR (henceforth TTR, because TTO no longer exists) is an excellent game,\nbut suffers (as so many games do) from some design decisions that unfortunately\nwere not quite prescient enough to see into the far future. There are issues of\nbalance: between gag tracks, between cogs and toons, \u0026amp;c. There are issues\nof overly restrictive gameplay, and gameplay not adapted to the ways that\nplayers have shaped it. It has historically been generally wise to adapt games\nto the ways that players have intentionally adjusted them for the purpose of\nfun. This document catalogues some very concrete proposed changes that\ntypically err on the side of only that which is needed to improve the game,\nrather than change the game unnecessarily or add to it. This document seeks not\nto imagine a new game, but rather to scratch the surface of an already-existing\ngame (viz. Toontown) and reveal the superior game that was within it all\nalong.\u003csup\u003e\\[1\\]\u003c/sup\u003e\n\nSome of the changes proposed here are meant to be combined with other such\nchanges, but some may be designed *without* other changes in mind, for the sake\nof independence and flexibility. This means \u0026mdash; among other things \u0026mdash;\nthat this document is *not* a blueprint for a particular, single, version of\nToontown with some choice combination of all of the proposed changes discussed\nwithin this document. Rather, when concretely forming an actual version of\nToontown, careful judgement and deliberation should be applied to the concerns,\nreasoning, and proposals contained within this document.\n\nWhile the changes made here are obviously, first and foremost, changes made to\nbalance the game and make it more fun, there are also some aesthetic\nconsiderations to fill in the gaps. Mostly, this comes in the form of what\nnumbers are chosen in cases where numeric values are being balanced. The\ntendency is to favor numbers that are more \u0026ldquo;round\u0026rdquo; (read:\n[regular](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_number), or its synonym,\n5-[smooth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_number)), and to favor\n[sequences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence) and mathematical\n[functions][function] that are more\n[\u0026ldquo;beautiful\u0026rdquo;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty).\nIn this document, heeding these aesthetic concerns is referred to as\n\u0026ldquo;rationalization\u0026rdquo; (both in the mathematical sense, from\n\u0026ldquo;ratio\u0026rdquo;, and the usual sense of \u0026ldquo;to give a rationale\u0026rdquo;).\nAgain, these concerns are always strictly secondary to the more important\nconcerns of game balance \u0026amp; fun.\n\n### what about other (non-TTR) servers, though?\n\nOther servers besides TTR exist, but are often dedicated to \u0026ldquo;adding\nto\u0026rdquo; the base game and/or \u0026ldquo;modernizing\u0026rdquo; it. While these are\ncertainly noble goals, they often amount to addition for the sake of addition\n(e.g. entirely new cog types, entirely new gag tracks, \u0026amp;c.) and revisionism\nfor the same of revisionism (a kind of pathological uniqueness). This document\ninstead focuses on TTR-as-essentially-TTO, that is, the \u0026ldquo;base game\u0026rdquo;\nin more or less the same state gameplay-wise as TTO in 2013. This acts as a\nstarting point, or even \u003ci\u003etabula rasa\u003c/i\u003e (a \u003ci\u003etabula rasa\u003c/i\u003e that, like a\nnewborn human mind, is not really a \u0026ldquo;blank\u0026rdquo; slate at all\u0026hellip;).\n\n### contributing\n\nSuggestions/corrections/additions/typo-fixes/\u0026amp;c. are *encouraged*. You can\nfile an issue and/or submit a pull request and/or [contact me\ndirectly](https://zz.nfshost.com/contact.html).\n\nBy contributing, you agree to license your contributions under the same license\nas this work (see the \u0026ldquo;legal\u0026rdquo; section).\n\n### legal\n\nThis work is licensed to you (or to anyone else) under the terms of the\n[Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0\nInternational](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) license (or any\nlater version of the same license, at your option).\n\n[![CC BY-SA 4.0+](https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png\n\"CC BY-SA 4.0+\")](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)\n\n---\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003e\nfootnotes for \u0026ldquo;general attitude/philosophy (prelude)\u0026rdquo;\n\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n1. See my open letter, [\u0026ldquo;On sellbot field offices (SBFOs), especially\n concerning the problem of \u0026lsquo;difficulty\u0026rsquo; in\n Toontown\u0026rdquo;][on-sbfos] if you are interested in more abstract\n considerations of the kind mentioned in this paragraph.\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\n## gag buffs/nerfs\n\n### toonup\n\nBalancing toonup gags is a bit of a different beast from balancing any of the\nother six tracks; rather than balancing the tracks against themselves, toonup\nis fundamentally different and can only be balanced from a perspective that\nincludes not just the HP of cogs, but also the attacking power of cogs and the\ncog-elimating powers of the other six gag tracks.\n\nIn TTR, toonup is very much overpowered, because lure and sound are powerful\nenough to make laff loss a relatively rare event. Whenever toonup is eventually\nused, it does the job with just 1 or 2 gags. With nerfs to lure and sound\nmaking cogs *generally* (buffs to trap notwithstanding) more difficult to\ndefeat, this effect should be counteracted a bit and thus make toonup not so\noverpowered.\n\nThat being said, there are still two outstanding problems with toonup:\n\n- Organic toonup is still probably underpowered even after nerfing lure and\n sound.\n- Bamboo Cane does worryingly little damage compared to the other toonup gags.\n\n#### organic toonup\n\nIt\u0026rsquo;s well-known that in TTR, organic toonup is incredibly underpowered.\nIt is, by far, the least powerful out of the seven possible tracks that can be\nmade organic. Partly, this is due to toonup just being overpowered; since each\ntoonup gag already does so much healing, adding just a tad extra is not going\nto be useful or even noticable. As a result, nerfing lure and sound, and thus\nmaking toonup less overpowered (relatively), already ameliorates the problem of\norganic toonup.\n\nBut there is another reason why organic toonup is so underpowered, and it has\nto do with the fact that toonup is fundamentally different from the other six\ngag tracks. With other gag tracks (particularly trap, sound, throw, squirt, and\ndrop), very slight differences in a gag\u0026rsquo;s damage can make the difference\nbetween a cog not dying and a cog dying, simply because a cog with 1 HP is\nalive and one with 0 HP is not. Strictly speaking, a similar principle does\napply to toonup: very slight differences in healing amounts can make the\ndifference between a toon being fully healed and a toon not being fully healed,\nsimply because a toon with 1 laff fewer than their max-laff is not fully\nhealed, and a toon with laff equal to their max-laff is. But the difference\nbetween a toon with laff 1 fewer than their maximum and a cog with 1 HP is very\nstark. Getting a toon to the point of having 1 laff missing is \u0026ldquo;good\nenough\u0026rdquo;; it is not the same, but is nevertheless nearly indistinguishible\nfrom, having full laff. But a cog with 1 HP is *not* \u0026ldquo;good enough\u0026rdquo;;\nthat cog still occupies a space in battle and can attack the toons at will,\nvery unlike one with 0 HP.\n\nThis fundamental difference is not something to get rid of. It is just an\ninherent part of toonup affecting *toons* rather than cogs (unlike the other\nsix gag tracks). Rather than trying to smooth over this fundamental difference,\nthe best thing to do is to treat it like it is rather than trying to make\norganic toonup *look like* organic versions of other gag tracks. Making organic\ntoonup gags do (roughly) 10% more healing than their inorganic counterparts is\nappealing because of its perceived consistency; but as is explained here, this\nconsistency is only perceived, not actual.\n\n#### Bamboo Cane\n\nIn TTR, the Bamboo Cane gag just intuitively feels a bit underwhelming compared\nto the other six toonup gags. But is that feeling justified? Here are a few\nquantitative ways of looking at this question.\n\nHow much healing does the Bamboo Cane do in proportion to the other\nmulti-target toonup gags (not including the level 7 gag)? The Bamboo Cane does\n45/18\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;2.5 times more than the Megaphone, but the Juggling Balls do\n120/45\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;2.666\u0026hellip; times more than the Bamboo Cane. From this\nperspective, the Bamboo Cane is slightly underpowered.\n\nHow much single-target healing does the Bamboo Cane do compared to its\ncorresponding single-target toonup gag? The Megaphone does 6/10\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.6\ntimes as much healing as the Feather. The Juggling Balls do\n40/70\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.571428\u0026hellip; times as much healing as the Pixie Dust. The\nBamboo Cane does 15/30\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5 times as much healing as the Lipstick.\nFrom this perspective, the Bamboo Cane is underpowered.\n\nHow does the Bamboo Cane\u0026rsquo;s healing amount look in the context of\ntoonup-gag-healing-amount-growth as a function of gag level?\n\n| | Feather | Megaphone | Lipstick | Bamboo Cane | Pixie Dust | Juggling Balls | High Dive |\n| ----------------- | ------- | --------- | -------- | ----------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- |\n| TTR | 10 | 18 | 30 | 45 | 70 | 120 | 210 |\n| \u0026delta;TTR | | +8 | +12 | +15 | +25 | +50 | +90 |\n| \u0026delta;\u0026delta;TTR | | | +4 | +3 | +10 | +25 | +40 |\n\nAs can be seen from the \u0026delta;\u0026delta;TTR row, the Bamboo Cane is the only\ntoonup gag where the toonup-gag-healing-amount-growth takes a noticable\n\u0026ldquo;dip\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;decline\u0026rdquo; (in particular, note the dip from +4\ndown to +3). From this perspective, the Bamboo Cane is underpowered.\n\nSo it seems that the feeling that the Bamboo Cane gag is a bit underwhelming\n*is* actually justified. What, then, should be the healing amount of the Bamboo\nCane? The most obvious choice is 48, since it\u0026rsquo;s the next multiple of 3\nafter 45. 48 actually has the advantage over 45 that it is also divisible by 2\n(that is, it\u0026rsquo;s divisible by 6). Divisibility by 6 is particularly nice\nfor the healing amounts of multi-target toonup gags because, when using a\ntoonup gag, you are always healing either 1, 2, or 3 toons (since you cannot\ntoonup yourself). The integers that are divisible by all three of those numbers\nare just those integers that are divisible by 6.\n\nWith the Bamboo Cane doing 48 laff of healing, it does\n48/18\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;2.666\u0026hellip; times more than the Megaphone, and the Juggling\nBalls do 120/48\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;2.5 times more than the Bamboo Cane. So they have\nbeen swapped in this respect and are as balanced as before (but now the\nJuggling Balls are the ones that look slightly underpowered). The Bamboo Cane\nwould do 16/30\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5333\u0026hellip; times as much healing as the\nLipstick. This is still less than both 0.6 and 0.571428\u0026hellip;, but still an\nimprovement. And the toonup gag healing amount table would look like this:\n\n| | Feather | Megaphone | Lipstick | Bamboo Cane | Pixie Dust | Juggling Balls | High Dive |\n| --------------- | ------- | --------- | -------- | ----------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- |\n| A | 10 | 18 | 30 | 48 | 70 | 120 | 210 |\n| \u0026delta;A | | +8 | +12 | +18 | +22 | +50 | +90 |\n| \u0026delta;\u0026delta;A | | | +4 | +6 | +4 | +28 | +40 |\n\nThere is no longer a \u0026ldquo;dip\u0026rdquo; where the Bamboo Cane is, although it\nseems that the dip has just moved up by 1 gag level. While this is possibly\nunfortunate, it really shouldn\u0026rsquo;t matter, since the Pixie Dust is a\nsingle-target toonup gag; 70 points of healing is a lot for a single toon.\nHowever, it should be noted that bumping Pixie Dust up from 70 to 75 solves\nthis problem (if it is a problem), and also makes Juggling Balls do\n40/75\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5333\u0026hellip; times as much single-target healing as the\nPixie Dust, which is exactly on par with Bamboo Cane doing\n16/30\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5333\u0026hellip; times as much single-target healing as\nLipstick.\n\n#### balancing\n\nFormat:\n\nhealing (**organic healing**); `propAcc` (**organic `propAcc`**)\n\n| | Feather | Megaphone | Lipstick | Bamboo Cane | Pixie Dust | Juggling Balls | High Dive |\n| --- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ | ------------------------------------ |\n| TTR | 10\u0026nbsp;(**11**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 18\u0026nbsp;(**19**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**33**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 45\u0026nbsp;(**49**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 70\u0026nbsp;(**77**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 120\u0026nbsp;(**132**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 210\u0026nbsp;(**231**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) |\n| A | 10\u0026nbsp;(**12**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 18\u0026nbsp;(**22**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**36**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 48\u0026nbsp;(**58**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 70\u0026nbsp;(**84**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 120\u0026nbsp;(**144**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 210\u0026nbsp;(**252**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) |\n| B | 10\u0026nbsp;(**12**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 18\u0026nbsp;(**22**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**36**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 48\u0026nbsp;(**58**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 75\u0026nbsp;(**90**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 120\u0026nbsp;(**144**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 210\u0026nbsp;(**252**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**70**) |\n| C | 10\u0026nbsp;(**12**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 18\u0026nbsp;(**22**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**36**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 48\u0026nbsp;(**58**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 70\u0026nbsp;(**84**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 120\u0026nbsp;(**144**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 210\u0026nbsp;(**252**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) |\n| D | 10\u0026nbsp;(**12**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 18\u0026nbsp;(**22**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**36**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 48\u0026nbsp;(**58**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 75\u0026nbsp;(**90**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 120\u0026nbsp;(**144**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 210\u0026nbsp;(**252**); 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) |\n\nFirst note that all proposals (A, B, C, and D) raise the healing amount of\nBamboo Cane from 45 to 48, as per the section on the Bamboo Cane.\n\nA raises the bonus healing amount for having organic toonup by a factor of 2,\nfrom 10% extra (rounded up to the nearest integer, to a minimum of 1 extra) to\n20% (ditto). This is mathematically convenient not just because it doubles the\nbenefit, but because division by 5 is still fairly easy (although not as easy\nas by 10) in decimal, and also because this same mechanic of 20%-rounded-up is\nalso used for yellow damage (`hpBonus`) against cogs, so players are used to\ndoing this kind of calculation already. Here we can see what impact this has on\nper-target healing from multi-target gags:\n\n| Megaphone (2 targets) | Megaphone (3 targets) | Bamboo Cane (2 targets) | Bamboo Cane (3 targets) | Juggling Balls (2 targets) | Juggling Balls (3 targets) |\n| ----------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |\n| \\[9,\u0026nbsp;9\\] (**\\[11,\u0026nbsp;11\\]**) | \\[6,\u0026nbsp;6,\u0026nbsp;6\\] (**\\[8,\u0026nbsp;7,\u0026nbsp;7\\]**) | \\[24,\u0026nbsp;24\\] (**\\[29,\u0026nbsp;29\\]**) | \\[16,\u0026nbsp;16,\u0026nbsp;16\\] (**\\[20,\u0026nbsp;19,\u0026nbsp;19\\]**) | \\[60,\u0026nbsp;60\\] (**\\[72,\u0026nbsp;72\\]**) | \\[40,\u0026nbsp;40,\u0026nbsp;40\\] (**\\[48,\u0026nbsp;48,\u0026nbsp;48\\]**) |\n\nThe intent of simply increasing the benefits of organic toonup is to make it\nmore useful and appealing, rather than hoping that the same thing that works\nfor other tracks (drop, squirt, throw, sound, and trap) will work for a track\nthat doesn\u0026rsquo;t do any damage to cogs.\n\nB is identical to A except that the base healing of Pixie Dust is raised from\n70 to 75, for the reasons explained at the end of the section on the Bamboo\nCane gag.\n\nC is similar to A except that there is even further incentive for organic\ntoonup, by raising `propAcc` by 20 across the board when the gags are organic.\nThe number 20 is chosen in particular for two reasons: one is that it puts\ntoonup gags at 97.5% accuracy when the track is maxed (97.5% being exactly\nhalfway between 95% and 100%), and the other reason is that 20 is conveniently\nalso the number used for a single stun\u0026rsquo;s contribution to gag accuracy.\nThe 97.5% figure is obtained because `trackExp` for toonup gags is halved\ncompared to its calculation for all other gag tracks; with maxed toonup, that\nis a `trackExp` of 30. So we have an `atkAcc` of\n90\u0026nbsp;+\u0026nbsp;30\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;120 (because `tgtDef` and `bonus` don\u0026rsquo;t\napply to toonup). With the `clamp_acc` function defined in the section on\nclamping `atkAcc`, we have:\n\n```python\nif atkAcc \u003c= 95:\n return max(atkAcc, 0)\nelse:\n return min(95 + (atkAcc - 95) / 10, 100)\n```\n\n```python\nif 120 \u003c= 95:\n return max(120, 0)\nelse:\n return min(95 + (120 - 95) / 10, 100)\n```\n\n```python\nreturn min(95 + (120 - 95) / 10, 100)\n```\n\n```python\nreturn min(95 + 25 / 10, 100)\n```\n\n```python\nreturn min(95 + 2.5, 100)\n```\n\n```python\nreturn 97.5\n```\n\nAnd finally, D is to C as B is to A.\n\nChoosing between these 4 options is a matter of how much organic toonup really\nneeds to be buffed to be roughly as viable as any of the other 6 possible\norganic tracks, as well as a matter of how powerful one is willing to make\ntoonup. It is clear that out of these 4 options, A is the weakest and D is the\nstrongest. But hopefully, the case that I have made is convincing, and 75-laff\nPixie Dust really does create better intra-track balance. If this is the case,\nthen it seems that whether or not 75-laff Pixie Dust is the right choice is a\nmatter of the sheer power of the toonup gag track overall.\n\n### trap\n\nDoes trap need to undergo some kind of balancing of its own? Maybe. If sound is\nnerfed (see the section on sound), then that might be enough to incidentally\nmake trap balanced; the fact remains that without *any* balancing efforts\n(read: TTR), trap remains the least popular gag (at least amongst 6-trackers).\nNotice that this doesn\u0026rsquo;t *necessarily* imply that trap is underpowered\n(and thus unbalanced); perhaps people just routinely underestimate the utility\nof a guaranteed stun for lure, and/or fail to imagine sufficiently clever ways\nof using trap gags in combination with other gags to kill cogs. Also note that,\nbesides nerfing sound (and thus making lure more of an option\u0026hellip; putting\naside lure nerfs) making trap more appealing, it also makes sense to consider\naccuracy changes: see the section on `atkAcc` clamping that explains how stuns\n(and thus trap) would be more useful with a different method of clamping\n`atkAcc`.\n\nNevertheless, it\u0026rsquo;s at least worth exploring a few conservative balancing\noptions.\n\n| | Banana Peel | Rake | Marbles | Quicksand | Trapdoor | TNT | Railroad |\n| ---------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ----------------- | ------------------ | ------------------ |\n| TTR | 12\u0026nbsp;(**13**) | 20\u0026nbsp;(**22**) | 35\u0026nbsp;(**38**) | 50\u0026nbsp;(**55**) | 70\u0026nbsp;(**77**) | 180\u0026nbsp;(**198**) | 195\u0026nbsp;(**214**) |\n| \u0026delta;TTR | | +8 | +15 | +15 | +20 | +110 | +15 |\n| A | 12\u0026nbsp;(**13**) | 20\u0026nbsp;(**22**) | 36\u0026nbsp;(**39**) | 60\u0026nbsp;(**66**) | 92\u0026nbsp;(**101**) | 156\u0026nbsp;(**171**) | 188\u0026nbsp;(**206**) |\n| \u0026delta;A | | +8 | +16 | +24 | +32 | +64 | +32 |\n| B | 12\u0026nbsp;(**13**) | 20\u0026nbsp;(**22**) | 36\u0026nbsp;(**39**) | 60\u0026nbsp;(**66**) | 92\u0026nbsp;(**101**) | 180\u0026nbsp;(**198**) | 196\u0026nbsp;(**215**) |\n| \u0026delta;B | | +8 | +16 | +24 | +32 | +88 | +16 |\n| C | 12\u0026nbsp;(**13**) | 20\u0026nbsp;(**22**) | 35\u0026nbsp;(**38**) | 56\u0026nbsp;(**61**) | 82\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 172\u0026nbsp;(**189**) | 198\u0026nbsp;(**217**) |\n| \u0026delta;C | | +8 | +15 | +21 | +26 | +90 | +26 |\n| D | 19\u0026nbsp;(**20**) | 28\u0026nbsp;(**30**) | 39\u0026nbsp;(**42**) | 51\u0026nbsp;(**56**) | 82\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 172\u0026nbsp;(**189**) | 183\u0026nbsp;(**201**) |\n| \u0026delta;D | | +9 | +11 | +12 | +31 | +90 | +11 |\n\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-disable MD033 --\u003e\n\u003c!-- Please forgive me for this table... I think this is as good as it gets --\u003e\n| | level 5 cog | level 6 cog | level 7 cog | level 8 cog | level 9 cog | level 10 cog | level 11 cog | level 12 cog |\n| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| TTR | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | **1\u0026nbsp;Railroad** |\n| | \" | \" | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Fruit\u0026nbsp;Pie\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Cream | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Safe\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Safe**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Storm\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Storm**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer |\n| A | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | **1\u0026nbsp;Railroad** |\n| | \" | \" | \" | \" | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Cream | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Storm\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Safe\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Safe**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Big\u0026nbsp;Weight\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;TNT**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Hose\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Cream**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e |\n| B | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | **1\u0026nbsp;Railroad** |\n| | \" | \" | \" | \" | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Cream | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Storm\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Safe\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Safe**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer |\n| C | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | **1\u0026nbsp;Railroad** |\n| | \" | \" | \" | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Glass\u0026nbsp;Of\u0026nbsp;Water\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Hose | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Safe\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Big\u0026nbsp;Weight\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Cream**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Storm\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Safe**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Hose |\n| D | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Marbles**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Quicksand**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT | **1\u0026nbsp;Railroad** |\n| | \" | \" | \" | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Glass\u0026nbsp;Of\u0026nbsp;Water\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Hose | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Safe\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Big\u0026nbsp;Weight\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Cream**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Storm\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Trapdoor**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Safe**\u003c/li\u003e\u003cul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;TNT\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Seltzer |\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-enable MD033 --\u003e\n\nA is a sort of \u0026ldquo;rationalization\u0026rdquo; of TTR, so that the deltas mostly\ngo up by 8 each time, and otherwise are powers of 2. This has the effect of\nmaking Marbles, Quicksand, and especially Trapdoor considerably more powerful,\nbut TNT considerably weaker (although still just enough to one-shot a level 11\nv1.0 cog). Compared to TTR this actually seems to lower the use for organic\ntrap by a bit, although having a 171-damage TNT instead of 156 actually is\nquite a bit better than going from 180 to 198 damage. Still, having to use a\nBig Weight on a level 12 cog that is being TNT\u0026rsquo;d is not really so bad\nconsidering that the Big Weight has two stuns counting towards its accuracy,\nand it\u0026rsquo;s only a level 4 gag.\n\nB is just A but adjusted to have the same TNT damage as TTR. This may look fine\nfor balancing trap but doesn\u0026rsquo;t look quite so good for balancing organic\ntrap.\n\nC is similar to A in that it makes Quicksand and Trapdoor considerably\nstronger, but nerfs TNT a bit, and also in that it is a sort of\n\u0026ldquo;rationalization\u0026rdquo; of TTR: the deltas make use of the sequence\n\\[(0,\u0026nbsp;)8, 15, 21, 26\\], which follows the recurrence relation\n*a*\u003csub\u003e*n*\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;2*a*\u003csub\u003e*n*\u0026minus;1\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*a*\u003csub\u003e*n*\u0026minus;2\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;1.\nThis is, in some sense, related to the method used in the sound section, where\nthe deltas have a slope of +1 (thus creating a [triangular\nsequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_number)), rather than the\ndeltas-of-the-deltas having a slope of \u0026minus;1 (thus creating a [tetrahedral\nsequence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahedral_number), but negative) as\nthey do here.\n\nD is similar to C but without the \u0026ldquo;rationalization\u0026rdquo;; the only\nimportant changes are to the damage of level \u0026le;4 trap gags. Rather than\nchoosing nice damage numbers or deltas, the damage figures are increased just\nenough to make it so that organic versions of the gags are able to one-shot a\ncog that is one higher level. In my opinion, if trap were to be balanced, this\nis probably the way to do it. The numbers are not as nice, but the effect is to\nmake both inorganic and organic trap more useful at all stages of the game. In\nany case, the deltas still have the interesting(?) property that they alternate\nbetween being prime and composite, and this pattern is maintained even if you\nintroduce a fictional \u0026ldquo;level 0\u0026rdquo; trap gag that does 0 damage. The\ndamage for Railroad is chosen by selecting a delta value that has already been\nused (viz. +11).\n\n### lure\n\n#### balancing numerically\n\nFormat:\n\nrounds; `propAcc` (**organic `propAcc`**)\n\n| | $1 Bill | Small Magnet | $5 Bill | Big Magnet | $10 Bill | Hypno | Presentation |\n| --- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | ------------------- | --------------------- |\n| TTR | 2; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 2; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 3; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 3; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 4; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 4; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**100**) |\n| A | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**100**) |\n| B | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**110**) |\n| C | 2; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**60**) | 2; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 2; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**100**) |\n| BC | 2; 50\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 2; 60\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 2; 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 1; 70\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**110**) |\n| D | 2; 40\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 1; 40\u0026nbsp;(**70**) | 2; 50\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 1; 50\u0026nbsp;(**80**) | 2; 60\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 1; 60\u0026nbsp;(**90**) | 15; 90\u0026nbsp;(**120**) |\n\nExcluding TTR, BC is the strongest here, and A is the weakest. It\u0026rsquo;s not\nimmediately clear how B, C, and D stack up in terms of strength because they\nmake some orthogonal changes.\n\nThe purpose of A is clear: the accuracy of lure tends to not really be a\nproblem, so we might as well be conservative there and instead drop the number\nof rounds for all lure gags (except level 7) to 1. This makes A the sort of\n\u0026ldquo;minimal change\u0026rdquo; needed to \u0026ldquo;balance\u0026rdquo; lure, because it\nmeans that lure is still quite useful for one round of damage mitigation and\neffectively two rounds of extra cog-fighting power (although you can only use\ntrap gags in the first such round, and the first round only has up to a maximum\nof 3 attackers), but not so powerful that you can effectively mitigate *all*\ndamage (assuming the best case of lure never missing).\n\nOne problem with A might be that since it doesn\u0026rsquo;t touch `propAcc` values,\norganic lure still kind of sucks. With the accuracy changes mentioned in the\naccuracy section it\u0026rsquo;s not so bad (compared to in TTR), but still probably\nnot worth it. B is a stronger version of A that is only stronger if you have\norganic lure; `propAcc` gets increased by 20 instead of the usual 10, making\norganic lure effectively worth an entire stun rather than half of a stun.\n\nAnother problem with A is that it makes single-target lure look even less\nappealing than in TTR. Single-target lures are already not used nearly as often\nas their multi-target counterparts in TTR, but with only 1 round of\neffectiveness for multi- and single-target lures, you can\u0026rsquo;t e.g.\n\u0026ldquo;lure left kill right\u0026rdquo; one-by-one and use single-target lures to\nget the left-side cogs, \u0026amp;c. To remedy this, C doubles the number of rounds\nof effectiveness for single-target lures only.\n\nBC combines B and C and thus is more powerful than either, and also attempts to\nfix both problems with A.\n\nIn case BC was too powerful and/or the problem of organic lure wasn\u0026rsquo;t\nsolved enough, D is a weakened version of BC that makes organic lure\neffectively worth a stun and a half, but lowers inorganic lure `propAcc` by 10\nat all levels (except 7). This may seem harsh (and indeed, it is perhaps\nunfortunate that making organic lure last for more rounds isn\u0026rsquo;t really\nviable and so D relies on making inorganic lure *more fickle*), but all is not\nlost for inorganic lure users so long as their friends stun dilligently enough\n(one half of an extra stun on average to reach TTR levels of accuracy) to reach\nan acceptable rate of success.\n\nIn my opinion, as far as balancing \u0026ldquo;numerically\u0026rdquo; goes, either BC or\nD is probably the best bet.\n\n#### balancing mechanically\n\nPossibly, in addition to balancing numerically, it may be feasible to alter the\nactual mechanics of lure gags somewhat. In particular, the idea is to\npermanently mark any cog that is successfully lured, and make it so that cogs\nthat are so marked cannot be lured. Marked (read:\nsuccessfully-lured-at-some-point) cogs cannot be lured in much the same way\nthat cogs currently in a lured state cannot be lured in TTR.\n\nThe intent here is to prevent low lure durations from encouraging a continuous\nstream of luring, killing, luring, cogs getting automatically unlured,\n*re-luring*, \u0026amp; so on \u0026amp; so forth. Rather than effectively giving players\nfree (except for taking a hit during the initial unlure) re-lures in many cases\nbecause they would be luring anyways to lure fresh new cogs, this ideally\nencourages actual lureless play alongside lure-based play. In addition,\nthere\u0026rsquo;s the incidental consequence of making single-target lure more\nuseful since it\u0026rsquo;s generally less likely that there\u0026rsquo;s more than one\ncog that can be lured at any given time.\n\nThis change could be done in tandem with not just a numeric balance of lure\n(like BC), but also possibly a change that causes cogs not to immediately\nattack when they are *automatically* unlured. Also, making this mechanical\nchange could justify using one of the numerical balancing schemes but with an\nextra round of duration added to all lure gags.\n\n##### pros\n\n- Actually helps to balance lure-based and lureless play and allow them to\n coexist.\n- Allows other changes to make more sense, like: numeric balancing,\n not-quite-as-nerfed lure gag durations, and cogs not immediately attacking\n when automatically unlured.\n- Makes single-target lure gags more useful, relatively speaking.\n\n##### cons\n\n- Requires an actual mechanical change, not just a numeric one.\n- Not actually useful if you don\u0026rsquo;t care about making lure-based and\n lureless play balanced and coexistent.\n\n### sound\n\n| | Bikehorn | Whistle | Bugle | Aoogah | Trunk | Fog | Opera |\n| ---------- | -------------- | -------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- | ---------------- |\n| TTR | 4\u0026nbsp;(**5**) | 7\u0026nbsp;(**8**) | 11\u0026nbsp;(**12**) | 16\u0026nbsp;(**17**) | 21\u0026nbsp;(**23**) | 50\u0026nbsp;(**55**) | 90\u0026nbsp;(**99**) |\n| \u0026delta;TTR | | +3 | +4 | +5 | +5 | +29 | +40 |\n| A | 4\u0026nbsp;(**5**) | 7\u0026nbsp;(**8**) | 11\u0026nbsp;(**12**) | 16\u0026nbsp;(**17**) | 22\u0026nbsp;(**24**) | 29\u0026nbsp;(**31**) | 40\u0026nbsp;(**44**) |\n| \u0026delta;A | | +3 | +4 | +5 | +6 | +7 | +11 |\n| B | 4\u0026nbsp;(**5**) | 7\u0026nbsp;(**8**) | 11\u0026nbsp;(**12**) | 16\u0026nbsp;(**17**) | 22\u0026nbsp;(**24**) | 30\u0026nbsp;(**33**) | 50\u0026nbsp;(**55**) |\n| \u0026delta;B | | +3 | +4 | +5 | +6 | +8 | +20 |\n\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-disable MD033 --\u003e\n\u003c!-- Please forgive me for this table... I think this is as good as it gets --\u003e\n| | level 8 cog | level 9 cog | level 10 cog | level 11 cog | level 12 cog |\n| --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |\n| TTR | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e3\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Aoogah\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e2\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Aoogah**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Aoogah\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Aoogah\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Bugle\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**4\u0026nbsp;Trunk**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | 1\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;3\u0026nbsp;Trunk | 2\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Aoogah | 3\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Aoogah |\n| A | 2\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Aoogah | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;3\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**2\u0026nbsp;Trunk**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e4\u0026nbsp;Fog\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e3\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Trunk**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e2\u0026nbsp;Opera\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Opera**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;3\u0026nbsp;Fog\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | **2\u0026nbsp;Opera**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Opera |\n| B | \" | \" | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e3\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**2\u0026nbsp;Fog**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e1\u0026nbsp;Opera\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e**1\u0026nbsp;Opera**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Fog\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**1\u0026nbsp;Trunk**\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Trunk\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e | \u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e3\u0026nbsp;Opera\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;1\u0026nbsp;Aoogah\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e2\u0026nbsp;Opera\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp;\u0026nbsp;**2\u0026nbsp;Fog**\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e |\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-enable MD033 --\u003e\n\nNote that the primary difference (assuming 4 toons with max sound) between A\nand B is that in cases where no toons have organic sound, you need one fewer\nFog to defeat a row of level 10 cogs with B. Assuming no restocks (and 3 Fogs\nper toon), you have enough Fogs to do this 3 times (4 with \u0026ge;1 organic sound)\nwith A and 4 times (6 with 4 organic sound) with B. Note that this also makes\norganic sound actually quite a bit more useful with A, since you only need 1\norganic sound to make a difference.\n\nTaking out a row of level 10s is pretty powerful, and *probably* still viable\nif you have, say, a row of two \u0026le;10s and two 11s, or three \u0026le;10s and one\nlevel \u0026ge;11\u0026hellip; One of the reasons that it\u0026rsquo;s best to err on the side\nof less power is that if sound is nerfed (relative to TTR), having even one\nsoundless (or simply unmaxed sound) toon dampens the possibilities\nconsiderably, in contrast to TTR, where sound is so powerful that only 3 toons\nwith sound gets you quite far in terms of sound spam. Removing a bit *more*\npower obviously has the potential to make this worse, but mostly just makes it\nmore clear that sound spam is typically not an option (at least, not in the way\nthat a TTR player is accustomed). Ideally, all possible 6-track builds should\nbe *roughly* equally viable (toonupless, trapless, lureless, soundless,\nthrowless, squirtless, dropless). In this case, we expect that \u0026mdash; again,\nroughly \u0026mdash; 1 out of every 7 \u0026ldquo;normal\u0026rdquo; (read: 6-track) toons is\nsoundless.\n\n## accuracy\n\n### `luredRatio`\n\nAssuming that all toons have their gag tracks maxed, `luredRatio` only makes a\ndifference in TTR in *one* situation: using throw gag(s) on an unlured level\n\u0026ge;10 cog, with no stun, while at least one other cog is lured. This is\nunfortunate, because:\n\n- This is a very niche use-case that doesn\u0026rsquo;t need to be serviced,\n especially considering that even a single stun will negate the usefulness of\n `luredRatio`.\n- Having a mechanic like `luredRatio` unnecessarily complicates accuracy\n calculation.\n\nThe proposal is to get rid of `luredRatio` wholesale, and collapse `bonus` and\n`prevHits` so that they are the same by definition.\n\n#### pros\n\n- Simplifies accuracy calculation.\n\n#### cons\n\nNone.\n\n### `atkAcc` clamping\n\nIn TTR, we have:\n\n```python\natkAcc = propAcc + trackExp + tgtDef + bonus\n```\n\nWhere `propAcc` is fixed for each particular gag, `trackExp` depends on the\nlevel of the highest gag that the gag user has access to within the relevant\ntrack, `tgtDef` depends on the cog\u0026rsquo;s level, and `bonus` is mostly just\nstun (and `luredRatio`, but `luredRatio` is to be gotten rid of, and only ever\napplied in very niche situations anyways).\n\nAgain, also in TTR, `atkAcc` is actually clamped to a maximum of 95 and a\nminimum of 0 (implementation-wise there is no minimum, but it\u0026rsquo;s easier to\nthink of it as having a minimum of 0 so that you can think of `atkAcc` as just\nbeing the percentage chance; there\u0026rsquo;s no material difference either way).\n\nBelow are (Python) functions `ttr_clamp_acc` and `clamp_acc`\u003csup\u003e\\[1\\]\u003c/sup\u003e,\nwhich correspond to TTR\u0026rsquo;s method of clamping `atkAcc` after it is\ncalculated as the sum of the four aforementioned numbers, and the proposed\nmethod of doing the same thing, respectively.\n\n```python\ndef ttr_clamp_acc(atkAcc):\n return max(min(atkAcc, 95), 0)\n\ndef clamp_acc(atkAcc):\n if atkAcc \u003c= 95:\n return max(atkAcc, 0)\n else:\n return min(95 + (atkAcc - 95) / 10, 100)\n```\n\nThe tweakable parameter of `clamp_acc` is the `10` that shows up in its\ndefinition. `10` is a convenient number because it gives what I think is a\nreasonable slope while also being very easy to calculate in your head (assuming\nyou\u0026rsquo;re working in base 10, you just move the decimal point one place to\nthe left). The magic number here is thus 145, because it is exactly when\n`atkAcc \u003e= 145` that the gag is guaranteed to hit.\n\n#### pros\n\n- Makes accuracy more meaningful in general, because its value changes more\n freely to reflect the strategy being used.\n- Particularly, makes stunning more meaningful because it creates a nonzero\n benefit in many more cases.\n- Makes the game less reliant on dumb luck by allowing accuracy to be pushed\n beyond the 95% mark (with the right gag picks), even up to 100%.\n\n#### cons\n\n- Complicates accuracy calculation.\n- This change would raise the overall power level of toons, since in some cases\n it improves accuracy, and in all other cases it keeps accuracy the same. This\n could be a con.\n- Allowing accuracy to possibly reach 100% could be seen as overly rigid or\n deterministic(\u0026#x203d;)\n\n---\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-disable MD033 --\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003efootnotes for \u0026ldquo;\u003ccode\u003eatkAcc\u003c/code\u003e clamping\u0026rdquo;\u003c/summary\u003e\n\u003c!-- markdownlint-enable MD033 --\u003e\n\n1. Python doesn\u0026rsquo;t have types, but it does have data types, and these two\n functions have different return (data) types, namely\n `ttr_clamp_acc: int -\u003e int` and `clamp_acc: int -\u003e (int | float)`. But\n really, it doesn\u0026rsquo;t matter\u0026hellip; just be sure not to somehow trip on\n that.\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\n## facilities\n\nThis section deals with \u0026ldquo;facilities\u0026rdquo;, which is a term here\nconstrued broadly to refer to factories (and the corresponding factory-like\nfacilities in the other three cog HQs) and bosses (all four in all four cog\nHQs). Note that this does not, however, include cog buildings.\n\n### barriers to entry\n\nIn TTR, the barriers to entry for the various facilities are as follows:\n\n| facility | requirement(s) |\n| -------------- | -------------------------------------------------------- |\n| factory, front | |\n| factory, side | 31 laff |\n| coin mint | |\n| dollar mint | 66 laff |\n| bullion mint | 71 laff |\n| DA office A | |\n| DA office B | 81 laff |\n| DA office C | 86 laff |\n| DA office D | 96 laff |\n| front 3 | |\n| middle 6 | 95 laff |\n| back 9 | 100 laff |\n| VP | 10 factories completed |\n| CFO | cashbot suit tasks (76 laff and access to 6 gag tracks) |\n| CJ | lawbot suit tasks (100 laff and access to 6 gag tracks) |\n| CEO | bossbot suit tasks (100 laff and access to 6 gag tracks) |\n\nIt is nice that some facilities that are considered to be designed for toons\nthat are *at least* middling in terms of power are nevertheless available to\nanyone: coin mints, DA offices A, front 3s, and VPs. However, the requirements\nfor facilities that have them range from \u0026ldquo;unfortunate, at least for\ncertain styles of play\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;completely unnecessary\u0026rdquo;. There\nare basically three groups of requirements that we want to talk about here, and\nso we will tackle them one-by-one in descending order of silliness.\n\n#### factories: the side entrance\n\nReally, no amount of argumentation *should* be required to establish that the\nside entrance of the sellbot factory should have no barriers to entry. The\nfront entrance already has no such barriers, and they are both just different\nentrances to the same facility anyways. Presumably, the reasoning for giving\nthe side entrance a laff limit is that if you go left after completing the\nfirst cog battle, you have to go through *stompers* and then complete another\ncog battle; if you keep going, you have to do the *most dangerous walk* across\nthe catwalk area of the factory before finally getting to the part of the\nfactory that every factory run has to do anyways. However, there are a few\nproblems with this reasoning for instituting a laff limit:\n\n- Most front entrance runs are long runs anyways, so they do all of this stuff\n as well (but with extra cog fights and catwalking).\n- Just because you enter via the side entrance does not mean that you *have* to\n go left after the first cog fight; you can just go straight.\n- Obstacles like stompers and goons can indeed shave off significant amounts of\n laff if you aren\u0026rsquo;t at least somewhat careful, but typically the real\n danger is in the last 4 cog fights (a.k.a. the only part of the factory that\n literally every factory run must complete anyways).\n\nIt\u0026rsquo;s clear that the way to go is lowering the laff limit on the factory\nside entrance to 1, to match the front entrance.\n\n#### factory-like facilities\n\nSome other factory-like facilities besides factories themselves have laff\nrequirements (viz. dollar \u0026amp; bullion mints, DA offices B, C, \u0026amp; D, middle\n6s, and back 9s). Is this warranted? At first it seems like it might indeed be\nwarranted, considering that all of these factory-like facilities are\nsignificantly more difficult than factories. In addition, it seems unlikely\nthat a toon that doesn\u0026rsquo;t meet the laff requirements for one of these\nfacilities will actually have a reason to do the facility. For the most part,\nthese facilities are frequented for the purpose of getting ready for cog suit\npromotions; but anyone who is doing this must have the corresponding suit and\nthus enough laff to do the corresponding facilities.\n\nHowever, I want to argue that these laff limitations should be removed entirely\n(or weakened, at the very least), for a number of reasons:\n\n- Shortened versions of all of these factory-like facilities are available to\n anyone, with no limitations. Coin mints, DA offices A, and front 3s all lack\n requirements, but they present identical challenges to their laff-gated\n counterparts! Therefore, for the sake of consistency, the requirements should\n be lifted (or at least, can reasonably be lifted). It could be argued that\n said laff-gated facilities do in fact present more challenge (enough to\n warrant locking them off to those with insufficient laff) because of their\n length. This is a kind of difficulty by attrition, where the danger is that\n you run out of (sufficiently powerful) gags too quickly to complete the whole\n facility. While this is indeed more of a problem for lower-laff toons\n (because they generally have fewer gag tracks and smaller gag pouches), in\n general this is not a good enough excuse. Imposing laff requirements means\n disallowing a party that has just *one* member who does not meet the\n requirement, so even a party with (to give the most extreme example) 3 maxed\n toons and 1 toon who just barely does not meet the requirement is barred,\n despite easily being able to handle the attrition. In addition, the\n facilities themselves provide ways of restocking gags, and players can even\n restock their own gags (and laff) through the use of SOS cards and unites.\n- It is common for toontasks to require things that can be easily (sometimes,\n *most* easily) be found within these factory-like facilities. Of course, a\n toon who doesn\u0026rsquo;t meet the requirements can instead do the corresponding\n facilities that don\u0026rsquo;t have such requirements; however, because these\n facilities are meant for teamwork (generally being done in parties of 4\n toons), being more flexible in which ones you can do is a big help. Being\n *able* to do a DA office D is a blessing when you need a DA office, and there\n are already 3 people waiting for a 4\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e toon to join them so that\n they can do a DA office D.\n- Completely preventing players from being able to do something just because\n you have a vague idea that they probably aren\u0026rsquo;t capable of it is\n often poor design. It is needlessly frustrating for players who intentionally\n play in an unexpected way, or intentionally seek extra challenge, or just\n feel a bit more \u0026ldquo;railroaded\u0026rdquo; due to the game deciding for them\n that they \u0026ldquo;aren\u0026rsquo;t ready yet\u0026rdquo;. The possible punishment in\n Toontown is never very great (going sad is not exactly the end of the world),\n so allowing players to decide for themselves should be unproblematic.\n- Removing these laff requirements is even more important when you consider\n implementing changes to the max-laff mechanic in general. Particularly, laff\n caps that allow players to limit how high their toon\u0026rsquo;s laff will ever\n be able to reach, and changes to max-laff acquisition (viz. toontasks \u0026amp;\n minigames that award max-laff), are both the kinds of changes that demand at\n least the reconsideration of laff requirements. In many of these cases,\n max-laff levels are being lowered overall, and so laff requirements must be\n removed (or at least lowered) in tandem.\n- If changes to requirements for doing bosses (see the next section) are\n considered, then removing these laff requirements for factory-like facilities\n may be necessary anyways.\n\n#### bosses (excluding VP)\n\nAfter considering the requirements for entry into the side entrance of\nfactories, and for entry into other factory-like facilities, we are now brought\nto the same issue w.r.t. boss fights (excluding VP, because it *effectively*\nhas no requirements due to only requiring 10 factories). It may seem\nparticularly obvious that there are no significant changes to be made to the\nrequirements for entry into non-VP bosses, considering that all three require\n(and only require) some part of the main taskline to be completed. However,\nthere are, \u003ci\u003eper se\u003c/i\u003e, ways of loosening these requirements without making\nchanges to the main taskline \u0026mdash; and there are reasons to do so, as well.\n\nWhat would be the motivation for loosening the requirements for entry into\nnon-VP bosses? There are basically two motivations: first \u0026amp; foremost is the\ndesire to open up non-VP bosses to challenge runs. Basically, we are talking\nabout uber toons here. In TTR, ubers are limited to maxing out their sellbot\nsuit by defeating the VP many times (and doing many factories). Allowing them\nother activities (viz. 3 other possible bosses to run) to do would be a huge\ngameplay improvement for uber/challenge-run styles of play. The second (lesser)\nmotivation is that as TTR\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Crash Sellbot HQ\u0026rdquo; and\n\u0026ldquo;Crash Cashbot HQ\u0026rdquo; events have shown, opening up bosses to more\ntoons is a good bit of fun. Of course, this is *not* to actually propose what\nthese two events do in particular, which involves nerfing said bosses to make\nthem more accessible to toons of all power levels.\n\nThere are two (*not* mutually exclusive) ways that the loosening of non-VP boss\nentry requirements can be achieved without any changes to the main taskline:\n\n1. Allow a similar mechanic to \u0026ldquo;Crash Sellbot/Cashbot HQ\u0026rdquo;, with\n so-called \u0026ldquo;rental suits\u0026rdquo; that allow entry into bosses without\n having the proper suit. This would be limited to just CFO, CJ, and CEO.\n Rental suits are permanently level 1; that is, they cannot level up and are\n always \u0026ldquo;ready for promotion\u0026rdquo;. The use of rental suits should\n probably have requirements; requiring the completion of some factory-like\n facilities (e.g. mirroring Sellbot HQ by requiring the completion of at\n least 10 factory-like facilities within the corresponding cog HQ) and/or\n requiring at least 1 maxed gag track should suffice (I would favor having\n both requirements).\n2. Make the tasklines that grant cog HQ suits available to any toon that meets\n one or both of the following requirements: **(2a)** the toon has completed\n the normal pre-requisite tasks (as in TTR), **(2b)** the toon has a level 50\n Mr. Hollywood suit.\n\nWhile these two options are not mutually exclusive, it probably suffices to\njust pick one. The second option seems more appealing, because it offers more\nof a sense of progression. The sense of progression is both because you have to\nprogress all the way through Sellbot HQ before getting to the other HQs, and\nbecause it allows leveling up the suits that you get for the other HQs, unlike\nrental suits. However, this is a higher barrier to entry than the first option\n(which may be a bad thing), and means more laff for ubers due to the other 3\ncog HQ suits also granting 5 laff each (this is not so much a problem with laff\ncapping). The second option also probably means that factory-like facilities\nwill be more popular (even if defeating some of them is required to get a\nrental suit) because bossing on low-laff toons will still mean having to earn\npromotions.\n\n## cogs and laff\n\nThis section discusses cog behavior (read: attacks) and maximum laff for toons.\nThese topics are inherently related for the obvious reason that higher maximum\nlaff is primarily useful for being able to handle more punishment from cogs\nbefore going sad. However, make no mistake: these topics are also intimately\ntied to the ability of toons to defeat \u0026amp; otherwise control cogs, that is,\ngag balance. These topics are difficult because they are so entangled in the\noverall power level of toons in the game, including toons doing challenge runs\nlike e.g. uber toons and/or semi toons.\n\nThat being said, even if these topics are difficult to treat due to being\nentangled in\u0026hellip; well, everything else, there is one thing that we can\nclearly state: toons have an excess of laff points in vanilla TTO/TTR. In many\nways this is just saying that the balance between toons and cogs is skewed\nheavily in favor of toons, hence the existence of challenge run styles of play.\nIn addition, it is also clear that multi-target attacks that cogs can perform\nare disproportionately powerful when compared to their single-target\ncounterparts. This makes cogs that have no multi-target attacks (e.g. any\nbossbots of higher rank than Yesman) disproportionately weak, and also makes\ncogs that do have multi-target attacks fickle in terms of damage output because\nit is a matter of chance whether or not they choose their attacks to be\nmulti-target ones.\n\nThe concern about multi-target cog attacks is not necessarily a sign of an\nactual problem; it might be perfectly okay for some cogs to be limited to\nsingle-target attacks, and for it to be a rather significant matter of chance\nwhether or not certain cogs choose to use their multi-target attack(s). But it\ndoes give something to consider when trying to balance cogs\u0026rsquo; attacks.\n\n### limiting laff\n\nThere are three main ways of limiting laff that we want to consider here: laff\ncapping, nerfing toontasks (and other max-laff-awarding activities), and\nlowering starting laff.\n\n#### laff capping\n\nLaff capping means allowing players to choose a laff limit for their toon at\nthe point of toon creation. A laff-capped toon starts with the same max-laff as\na normal toon (15, unless modifications are made), but any max-laff increases\nthat they receive can raise their max-laff to, *at most*, their laff cap. This\nis a pretty mechanically straightforward change and has already been\nimplemented at least once before. Laff capping is an appealing proposition, but\nits usefulness is essentially limited to the creation of uber toons; it does\nonly a little to help balance the game generally, because it is entirely\nvoluntary.\n\n##### pros\n\n- It\u0026rsquo;s voluntary, which has the benefit of encouraging a wider range of\n playstyles and allowing players to choose for themselves.\n- It\u0026rsquo;s flexible enough to limit max-laff to any arbitrary degree.\n\n##### cons\n\n- It\u0026rsquo;s voluntary, which has the drawback of doing only a little to help\n balance the game generally, and\n- Being voluntary also tends to cause greater power disparities between toons\n that are trying to cooperate.\n\n#### nerfing toontasks (and company)\n\nIt is possible to limit maximum laff in general (and thus take a step towards\nbalancing the game more generally) by nerfing the max-laff rewards given by\ntoontasks and other relevant activites. The following list chronicles the\nprogression of the mainline toontasks that award max-laff, including the\nmax-laff that a toon has *after* completing each particular\nneighborhood/playground (assuming all max-laff boosts are from toontasks, and\nnot other sources like e.g. fishing):\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003emax-laff-awarding toontasks\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n- Toontown Central (25 laff)\n - +1 laff (Professor Pete)\n - +2 laff (Honey Haha)\n - +2 laff (Professor Wiggle)\n - +3 laff (Sticky Lou)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dock (34 laff)\n - +2 laff (Billy Budd)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n- Daisy Gardens (43 laff)\n - +1 laff (Sofie Squirt/Artie/Inkeeper Janet/Barber Bjorn)\n - +1 laff (Sofie Squirt/Artie/Inkeeper Janet/Barber Bjorn)\n - +2 laff (Postman Felipe)\n - +2 laff (sprocket recovery/generic)\n - +3 laff (Uncle Mud/Uncle Spud/Aunt Hill)\n- Minnie\u0026rsquo;s Melodyland (52 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n- The Brrrgh (61 laff)\n - +1 laff (Chicken Boy/Wynne Chill/Eddie the Yeti)\n - +1 laff (Chicken Boy/Wynne Chill/Eddie the Yeti)\n - +2 laff (Sweaty Pete)\n - +3 laff (Lounge Lassard)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland I (71 laff)\n - +1 laff (Powers Erge)\n - +2 laff (Lawful Linda)\n - +3 laff (Rocco)\n - +4 laff (Zari)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland II (81 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n - +4 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland III (91 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n - +4 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland IV (100 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +2 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n - +3 laff (generic)\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\nAn easy way to lower the overall amount of max-laff awarded by tasks is by\nlowering only the rewards of tasks that award \u0026ge;2 max-laff. This way, the\nentire structure of the taskline is totally intact. Here is what this approach\nlooks like if taken to the extreme (all max-laff-awarding tasks giving exactly\n+1 max-laff):\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003eall max-laff-awarding toontasks awarding +1\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n- Toontown Central (21 laff)\n - +1 laff (Professor Pete)\n - +1 laff (Honey Haha)\n - +1 laff (Professor Wiggle)\n - +1 laff (Sticky Lou)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dock (26 laff)\n - +1 laff (Billy Budd)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Daisy Gardens (31 laff)\n - +1 laff (Sofie Squirt/Artie/Inkeeper Janet/Barber Bjorn)\n - +1 laff (Sofie Squirt/Artie/Inkeeper Janet/Barber Bjorn)\n - +1 laff (Postman Felipe)\n - +1 laff (sprocket recovery/generic)\n - +1 laff (Uncle Mud/Uncle Spud/Aunt Hill)\n- Minnie\u0026rsquo;s Melodyland (36 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- The Brrrgh (41 laff)\n - +1 laff (Chicken Boy/Wynne Chill/Eddie the Yeti)\n - +1 laff (Chicken Boy/Wynne Chill/Eddie the Yeti)\n - +1 laff (Sweaty Pete)\n - +1 laff (Lounge Lassard)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland I (45 laff)\n - +1 laff (Powers Erge)\n - +1 laff (Lawful Linda)\n - +1 laff (Rocco)\n - +1 laff (Zari)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland II (49 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland III (53 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n- Donald\u0026rsquo;s Dreamland IV (57 laff)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n - +1 laff (generic)\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\nIn combination with other propositions, e.g. the nerfing of gag tracks like\nsound \u0026amp; lure, the buffing of cog attacks, \u0026amp;c., this particular approach\nis probably too steep of a nerf; starting The Brrrgh with 36 laff is tough.\nAlso, without changes to other sources of max-laff increases, the amount of\nmax-laff available from toontasks alone is worryingly similar to the amount of\nlaff available from other sources: 42 from tasks, and 37 from elsewhere (plus\n15 starting laff, for an absolute maximum laff of 94).\n\nThe good news is that exactly how much laff you distribute via toontasks, and\nexactly *when* in the taskline you distribute it, is very tweakable: setting\nall max-laff-awarding tasks to award +1 laff works as one extreme, and some\nmiddle ground between that and something much more high-powered like vanilla\nTTO/TTR can easily be achieved by tweaking the rewards within any of the\nvarious neighborhoods/playgrounds.\n\nUltimately, to what degree it makes sense to cripple (or perhaps boost?)\nmax-laff accumulation is *wildly dependent* on what other changes are made (or\nnot made) to the game.\n\nThe quantity of max-laff increases available from non-task sources can be\ntweaked to better match the max-laff increases available from tasks, which\nbrings us to the topic of how to nerf these non-task sources if necessary.\n\nWhen it comes to non-task sources of max-laff increases, all of them are given\n+1 at a time, so the technique used for toontasks doesn\u0026rsquo;t apply. Instead,\nwe have two (not mutually exclusive) options: some (or all) of the increases\ngranted by a given activity have to be removed outright, and/or an overall cap\ncan be placed on the total number of max-laff points that can be obtained from\nnon-task sources. If we break down the non-task sources of max-laff increases,\nwe see that most of them are from leveling up cog HQ suits:\n\n- +7 (fishing)\n- +5 (Sellbot HQ)\n- +5 (Cashbot HQ)\n- +5 (Lawbot HQ)\n- +5 (Bossbot HQ)\n- +4 (gardening)\n- +3 (golfing)\n- +3 (racing)\n\nBesides the obvious options that we have for each non-task source of max-laff\nincreases \u0026mdash; viz. leaving it alone, or removing all of its max-laff\nincreases \u0026mdash; we\u0026rsquo;ll quickly consider ways of partly removing the\nmax-laff increases from each source listed above. Note that one invariant that\nwe maintain is always giving one of the max-laff increases as an award for\ntotally maxing out the activity.\n\n- Fishing gives an odd number of max-laff increases (7), so it may make sense\n to only award a max-laff increase every *other* time, starting with the\n first. This would mean getting an increase for catching a total of 10, 30,\n 50, \u0026amp; 70 species, for a total of +4 max-laff from maxing fishing. Another\n possibility is just removing one or more of the earliest max-laff rewards,\n e.g. removing two of them to end up with awards at 30, 40, 50, 60, \u0026amp; 70\n species caught, for a total of +5 max-laff from maxing fishing. Yet another\n possibility comes from 70 being divisible by 14: awarding a max-laff increase\n at each multiple of 14 species caught. Awards at 14, 28, 42, 56, \u0026amp; 70\n would place the total max-laff awarded for maxing fishing at +5.\n- Lowering the number of max-laff increases awarded by cog HQs is more\n difficult, mostly because it is engrained in the way that cog suit promotions\n work: at the highest-rank suit (e.g. Mr. Hollywood for Sellbot HQ), the\n number of merits (using the term \u0026ldquo;merit\u0026rdquo; generically) needed to\n achieve each successive promotion follows a vaguely [sawtooth][sawtooth]\n pattern, with an increase in max-laff accompanying each fall. The purpose of\n having this kind of payoff is obvious, and it only makes sense to replace any\n removed max-laff increase with some other suitable reward. Short of changing\n the merits-for-promotion progression itself, removing some max-laff increases\n from cog HQs will require more creativity than is warranted in this document;\n you might try, for example, awarding things like a single extra tree spot at\n the toon\u0026rsquo;s estate.\n- There are basically 4 viable options for gardening: max-laff increases at 20,\n 30, \u0026amp; 40 species, or at 20 \u0026amp; 40 species, or at 30 \u0026amp; 40 species,\n or only at 40 species.\n- Golfing and racing are similar to gardening, but with just 3 trophies to\n choose from. Generally, you can grant max-laff increases for the\n 1\u003csup\u003est\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026amp; 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e, or the 2\u003csup\u003end\u003c/sup\u003e \u0026amp;\n 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e, or the 3\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e only.\n\nNote that in the case that you use one or more of these methods, it may make\nsense to replace the now-missing max-laff increases with something else to fill\nin the missing space; even just a cosmetic reward.\n\nCapping the amount of max-laff that can be obtained from non-task sources is\nfairly straightforward, except that you have to choose a particular number to\ncap at. The considerations for choosing such a number (if any) must heed the\nfollowing considerations, in descending order of importance:\n\n- Balance against the rest of the game, including the amount of max-laff\n available from toontasks, and general toon-cog balancing considerations.\n- Not capping so low as to make too many sources of laff useless, but also not\n so high as to make the viability of toons in combat very reliant on doing\n unrelated minigames like racing.\n- Aesthetic concerns about the\n [regularity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regular_number) of numbers used\n (including the capping number itself, as well as the highest max-laff\n achievable in the game).\n\nHere\u0026rsquo;s a summary of the pros \u0026amp; cons of stripping (some) max-laff\nawards from non-task sources, as well as the pros \u0026amp; cons of putting an\noverall cap on the number of max-laff available from such sources (note that\nthese two things are *not* mutually exclusive):\n\n##### pros (of lowering max-laff awards for non-task activities)\n\n- On its own, this technique lowers the max-laff-granting power of non-task\n activities while keeping some incentive for each toon to do each such\n activity.\n- On its own, this technique is not very invasive; it doesn\u0026rsquo;t require a\n new mechanic to be added. At its core, all that really needs to be done is\n changing some max-laff awards from +1 to +0, or something very similar.\n- Using this technique can allow the balancing of these various activities. For\n example, in vanilla TTO/TTR, fishing alone grants more max-laff than racing\n \u0026amp; golfing combined.\n\n##### cons (of lowering max-laff awards for non-task activities)\n\n- In some cases, now-missing max-laff rewards will create a void that will\n either have to be left open, or filled with some other sort of reward.\n- In some cases, this may skew non-task activities towards power players that\n are willing to invest the time into maxing these activities, because only\n investing *some* time into a given activity won\u0026rsquo;t give much (if any)\n up-front rewards.\n\n##### pros (of capping max-laff gain attainable from non-task activities)\n\n- Skews away from excessively rewarding power players by allowing players to\n more easily get to the laff cap without having to completely max out every\n possible source of max-laff. It should be noted that this is much more\n important than in TTR, because in TTR getting from 100 max-laff (no non-task\n activities completed) to 137 max-laff (all non-task activities completed;\n maximum possible laff) is not much of an advantage gameplay-wise. 100 laff is\n more than enough to do even the most challenging things in TTR.\n- Allows putting a hard limit on attainable max-laff without tampering with the\n various ways of getting it.\n\n##### cons (of capping max-laff gain attainable from non-task activities)\n\n- There is some pressure to add extra rewards (cosmetic or otherwise) to fill\n in the \u0026ldquo;gaps\u0026rdquo; that are here created by refusing to award max-laff\n to players that have already hit the cap, even though they continue to\n achieve further progress in non-task activities. This pressure is eased by\n \u0026ldquo;completionist\u0026rdquo; urges, which urge players to complete things even\n if there is no reward \u003ci\u003eper se\u003c/i\u003e for doing so. The pressure is eased as\n well by the activities themselves being high quality, and thus motivating\n players to do the activities for the sake of the activities themselves being\n enjoyable.\n- Related to the previous point: placing the cap too low could make excessively\n many sources of laff useless (or at least, less useful). A player that has\n already reached max-laff now has less incentive to do non-task activities\n that they haven\u0026rsquo;t maxed out; this is trivially not the case if the cap\n is removed, since anyone whose laff is maxed out has already maxed out all\n activities anyways.\n- It\u0026rsquo;s somewhat invasive; a new mechanic needs to be introduced that caps\n the overall max-laff gain attainable from non-task sources.\n\n### tweaking cog attacks\n\nWhen it comes to tweaking cogs\u0026rsquo; attacks, there are two main concerns that\nwe want to address here: disparity between single-target and multi-target\nattacks, and the overall power level of cogs.\n\n#### single-target vs. multi-target attacks\n\nIt\u0026rsquo;s well understood in TTR that multi-target cog attacks are more\nformidable than their single-target counterparts. The reason is that\nmulti-target attacks tend to do the same per-toon damage as single-target ones;\nfurthermore, multi-target attacks are never \u0026ldquo;duds\u0026rdquo;. By\n\u0026ldquo;dud\u0026rdquo;, we mean attacks like the Glad Hander\u0026rsquo;s Fountain Pen or\nthe Yesman\u0026rsquo;s Razzle Dazzle. With a multi-target attack\u0026rsquo;s damage\neffectively being multiplied by the number of toons that it hits, the total\ndamage output is much more impressive.\n\nOf course, this impressive damage being spread evenly between two or more toons\n*does* dilute its impact to some extent. But the amount of resources (in terms\nof both gag expenditure, and the number of gags in each round that have to be\ndedicated just to toonup rather than other gags) required to patch up the\ndamage is definitely much higher. This imbalance may be acceptable to some\nextent; it all depends on how neck-breakingly sharp you want the variation to\nbe between cog attacks, including the variation between the attacks of a given\ncog species, as well as the variation between the arsenal of different cog\nspecies. It also makes sense to want *some* single-target attacks to really\n\u0026ldquo;sting\u0026rdquo;; it really stings when a level 11 Mingler uses Paradigm\nShift and (assuming no misses; the accuracy is 90%) dishes out a whopping\n24\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;4\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;96 damage! There are a number of approaches\nthat can be taken here. So here are a few of them (note that none of them are\nmutually exclusive with any of the others), each accompanied by at least some\ndiscussion/deliberation:\n\n##### nerfing multi-target attacks directly\n\nThe most obvious choice is to directly nerf multi-target attacks by tweaking\nthe numbers. This further splits our options into nerfing damage and/or nerfing\naccuracy.\n\nNerfing accuracy might *sound* like a somewhat poor idea given that it\nintroduces more of the \u0026ldquo;dumb luck\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;fickleness\u0026rdquo;\nthat is lamented elsewhere in this document. However, it actually turns out to\nnot be that bad of an idea, for at least two reasons. First is that, unlike\nmaking toons\u0026rsquo; gags more fickle, making cog attacks more fickle\ndoesn\u0026rsquo;t have the same negative impact on gameplay. When adding dumb luck\nto player-controlled elements of gameplay, it can quickly become frustrating,\nbecause players feel (often justifiably) that their planning \u0026amp; actions have\nbeen in vain just because of some dumb luck that seems to have no purpose, no\nway of being predicted, and no way of being controlled. But when adding luck\nreliance to NPCs (adversaries, in this case), the effect is much more mild. The\nplayer already sees the NPCs as being somewhat opaque, so leaving their\ndecisions \u0026mdash; and the effects that they have on the game world \u0026mdash;\ntotally or partly up to chance doesn\u0026rsquo;t necessarily make the opacity worse\nor make anything seem fickle. Indeed, the methodic use of chance is often to\ngreat effect whenever it makes NPCs seem more organic (although that particular\nuse is not directly relevant here).\n\nThe other reason that adding dumb luck to cog attacks is less of a problem here\nis that we are talking specifically about multi-target attacks, which perform\n[independent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_independence)\n[rolls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dice) for each toon in the battle. This\ncauses the number of toons that are hit (or, conversely, the number of toons\nthat are missed) to be selected from a [binomial\ndistribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution)\n*B*(*n*,\u0026nbsp;*p*), where *n* is the number of toons in the battle and *p* is\nthe probability of the attack hitting a given toon. Because of the [central\nlimit theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem), this looks\nvery similar to a normal distribution; particularly, with the binomial\ndistribution it looks quite normal even with an *n* as low as\n*n*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;4. The [variance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance) of\nsaid distribution is *np*(1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*p*), so with 4 toons in the case\nof maximum variance\u003csup\u003e\\[1\\]\u003c/sup\u003e:\n\n*np*(1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*p*)\u003cbr /\u003e\n=\u0026nbsp;4\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;0.5(1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;0.5)\u003cbr /\u003e\n=\u0026nbsp;2\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;0.5\u003cbr /\u003e\n=\u0026nbsp;1\n\nSo the expected number of toons struck is obviously 2, but with a variance (and\ntherefore also [standard\ndeviation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation), in this case) of\n\u0026pm;1. This interval, \\[1,\u0026nbsp;3\\], contains 87.5% of all result\nvalues.\u003csup\u003e\\[2\\]\u003c/sup\u003e And this is only the \u0026ldquo;worst\u0026rdquo; case; higher\nor lower values of *p* will yield smaller variances/standard deviations.\n\nAs a result of this central tendency, high levels of \u0026ldquo;dumb luck\u0026rdquo; in\ncogs\u0026rsquo; multi-target attacks actually doesn\u0026rsquo;t make cogs terribly\nfickle in terms of raw damage output. That being said, there is, of course,\nmore significant variation to be expected when it comes to exactly *which*\ntoons are struck, as *p* decreases.\n\nWhen deciding to nerf multi-target attacks directly, the following pros and\ncons of nerfing the accuracy (by itself) should be taken into consideration,\nalthough do note that nerfing damage and nerfing accuracy are not mutually\nexclusive:\n\nPros of nerfing accuracy in particular:\n\n- Less revisionist in some sense, because you can nerf accuracy without\n actually changing the observed effects of toons being struck by said attacks.\n- Makes multi-target attacks less disruptive without actually changing the\n particular number of laff points required to survive a particular barrage of\n cog attack(s). This makes cog attacks *basically* just as deadly overall,\n while being significantly less of a drain on toon resources.\n\nCons of nerfing accuracy in particular:\n\n- Less deterministic. This is mostly a problem in dire situations, where the\n lowered likelihood of a cog making you go sad might be nice \u0026mdash; but\n hardly a guarantee or reassurance. However, it should be noted that although\n multi-target attacks are generally more powerful than the corresponding\n multi-target ones in TTR, the *per-toon* damage is typically roughly the\n same, so this point applies to essentially any cog attack with an accuracy\n that is \u0026ldquo;significantly\u0026rdquo; less than 100%.\n- Because *only* nerfing accuracy keeps cog attacks at basically the same level\n of deadliness, this form of nerf is not as effective when reduced access to\n laff points is what demands the nerf.\n\nAnd now, we will take a look at the pros and cons of nerfing multi-target\nattacks directly, on its own:\n\n###### pros\n\n- Weakens cogs. This can be a good thing when it is warranted due to cogs being\n too powerful in comparison to toons.\n- Not very invasive; all that need to be tweaked are damage and/or accuracy\n numbers.\n- Can be an effective way of balancing single-target and multi-target cog\n attacks.\n\n###### cons\n\n- Weakens cogs. This can be a bad thing when it is unwarranted due to cogs\n already being as powerful as, or less powerful than, toons.\n- Revisionist towards the set of cog attacks that exist in TTR, because the\n attacks themselves have to be modified.\n- This method requires some meticulousness, because all cogs with multi-target\n attacks have to be balanced, against themselves and against all other cogs of\n a similar level. This includes balancing the damage/accuracy values for the\n attack *at each cog level* (of which there are 5 for a given cog species),\n for each such attack.\n\n---\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003e\nfootnotes for \u0026ldquo;nerfing multi-target attacks directly\u0026rdquo;\n\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n1. Maximum variance occurs at *p*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5, because for a given *n*, the\n variance is [proportional][proportional] to\n *p*(1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*p*)\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;*p*\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*p*\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e.\n Since this is [quadratic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_equation)\n in *p*, the global maximum [is just where the derivative is\n zero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabola). The\n [derivative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative) w.r.t. *p* is then\n 1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;2*p*, by the [power\n rule](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_rule). Finding where the\n derivative is zero:\u003cbr /\u003e\n 1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;2*p*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0\u003cbr /\u003e\n \u0026minus;2*p*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;1\u003cbr /\u003e\n *p*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;\u0026frac12;\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5.\n2. The [probability mass\n function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_mass_function) for a\n particular outcome *k* over a binomial distribution\n *X*\u0026nbsp;\u0026#x223c;\u0026nbsp;*B*(*n*,\u0026nbsp;*p*) is\n Pr(*X*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;*k*)\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;\u003csub\u003e*n*\u003c/sub\u003eC\u003csub\u003e*k*\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026times;\u0026nbsp;*p*\u003csup\u003e*k*\u003c/sup\u003e(1\u0026nbsp;\u0026minus;\u0026nbsp;*p*)\u003csup\u003e*n*\u0026minus;*k*\u003c/sup\u003e.\n The sum of this PMF over *k*\u0026nbsp;\u0026isin;\u0026nbsp;{1,\u0026nbsp;2,\u0026nbsp;3}, where\n *n*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;4 and *p*\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;0.5, is 0.875\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;\u0026frac78;.\n Note that this is not representative of [approximating the binomial\n distribution with the normal\n distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem) (where\n \u0026pm;\u0026sigma; contains [roughly\n 68.3%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule) of the\n result values) because there is no [continuity\n correction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_correction) (and *n* is\n small).\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\n##### buffing single-target attacks directly\n\nThe considerations for buffing single-target cog attacks directly are largely\nsimilar to (or rather, inverse to) the considerations for nerfing multi-target\nones. One notable difference is that changing accuracy values is no longer\nreally an option here; most cog attacks (especially those from cogs that are a\nhigh level for their species\u003csup\u003e\\[1\\]\u003c/sup\u003e) have accuracy reasonably close to\n100% anyways, and single-target attacks are not affected by accuracy changes in\nthe same way as their multi-target counterparts.\n\nIt should also be noted that buffing single-target cog attacks has the effect\nof raising the threshold for how much laff a toon needs to have left to\nwithstand a given number of cog attacks. This is not necessarily the case when\ntampering with multi-target attacks.\n\nSo let\u0026rsquo;s take a look at the pros and cons of buffing single-target cog\nattacks directly, on its own:\n\n###### pros\n\n- Strengthens cogs. This can be a good thing when it is warranted due to cogs\n being less powerful than toons.\n- Not very invasive; all that need to be tweaked are damage numbers.\n- Can be an effective way of balancing single-target and multi-target cog\n attacks.\n\n###### cons\n\n- Strengthens cogs. This can be a bad thing when it is unwarranted due to cogs\n already being as powerful as, or more powerful than, toons.\n- Revisionist towards the set of cog attacks that exist in TTR, because the\n attacks themselves have to be modified.\n- This method requires some meticulousness, because all cogs have to be\n balanced, against themselves and against all other cogs of a similar level.\n This includes balancing the damage values for the attack *at each cog level*\n (of which there are 5 for a given cog species), for each such single-target\n attack.\n\n---\n\n\u003cdetails\u003e\n\u003csummary\u003e\nfootnotes for \u0026ldquo;buffing single-target attacks directly\u0026rdquo;\n\u003c/summary\u003e\n\n1. \u0026ldquo;Species\u0026rdquo; here refers to particular named species, like\n Telemarketer or Corporate Raider.\n\n\u003c/details\u003e\n\n##### attack limiting\n\nNow we are brought to options more \u0026ldquo;radical\u0026rdquo; than just changing\nsome of the numbers, by introducing additional mechanic(s): first, attack\nlimiting. The basic idea is to treat cogs slightly more like toons, in that\nthey will have *some* attacks in limited quantity, just like toons can only\ncarry e.g. 3 Birthday Cakes. It should be noted that attack limiting is\ndiscussed here as a way of balancing multi-target cog attacks against\nsingle-target ones, but is actually potentially more useful. Attack limiting\ncan act as a general strategy to be used for game-balancing, as well as a way\nto simply make cog fights more interesting.\n\nIt doesn\u0026rsquo;t really make sense to allow cogs to run out of attacks\nentirely, lest we fall into the trap of making cogs mirror toons for no other\nreason than \u0026ldquo;symmetry\u0026rdquo; for its own sake; some asymmetry between\ntoons and cogs is intentional and beneficial to the game\u0026rsquo;s design.\nRather, when applying attack limiting, it is expected that each cog species\nwill possess at least one attack that is unlimited in use.\n\nAttack limiting should not break in the presence of v2.0 cogs or similar. If,\nfor example, a v2.0 cog has a one-time-only attack and uses it, and then has\ntheir first shell defeated, their skelecog form should not be able to use that\nattack.\n\nThe main issue left to hash out here (short of actually proposing a particular\nattack limiting scheme for every cog species) is the issue of which numbers it\nmakes sense to use. Generally, it is expected that any limit greater than 3 or\nso is not going to be very useful, because cogs are not expected to last very\nlong on the battlefield and perform a lot of attacks. Limits greater than 3 are\ngoing to make the attack *effectively* unlimited most of the time in practice,\nand even a limit of 3 on a single attack is probably pretty high. Again, it\ndepends on how you choose to balance the rest of the game as to how many\nattacks you expect cogs to actually be able to perform in various situations.\nAdditionally, the effects of an attack being limited are dependent on the\nprobability of that attack occuring in general; an attack that is limited to\none time only, but has a 10% usage chance, is only *somewhat* limited by the\none-time-only bit. In general, most attacks that are limited should be limited\nto either 1 or 2.\n\nIt *is* possible to slightly extend this concept by pooling some of the attacks\nthat a given cog species has into a group, and then putting a limit on that\ngroup, rather than a separate limit for each attack in the group. However, this\ncomplicates things considerably for no apparent benefit. Potentially, this is\nuseful when a cog has many attacks in their arsenal and you want to limit the\nuse of any of those attacks that aren\u0026rsquo;t a particular one or two of them,\nbut that seems like a niche usecase. Any other benefits are a mystery as of\nyet.\n\n###### pros\n\n- Weakens cogs (usually). This can be a good thing when it is warranted due to\n cogs being too powerful in comparison to toons.\n- Doesn\u0026rsquo;t require revising attacks; the attacks stay the same, and\n cogs\u0026rsquo; use of them is what changes.\n- Makes cog behavior somewhat more deterministic, in a way that toons can\n strategize around (viz. it is possible to know that a cog has exhausted some\n attack and cannot use it again).\n- Flexible \u0026amp; multi-purpose.\n\n###### cons\n\n- Weakens cogs (usually). This can be a bad thing when it is unwarranted due to\n cogs already being as powerful as, or less powerful than, toons.\n- Invasive, because a new mechanic must be added into the game, which\n complicates the game\u0026rsquo;s mechanics.\n- This method requires some meticulousness, because any cog attack by any cog\n species is potentially the subject of attack limiting.\n\n##### varying target numbers\n\nToying around with exactly how many toons can be hit by a given multi-target\ncog attack is a possibility. The obvious way to do this is to set the (maximum)\nnumber of targets for each of a species\u0026rsquo;s multi-target attacks on a\nper-attack-per-level basis, or just on the somewhat coarser per-attack basis.\n\nBalancing on the level of target count could allow for more fine-grained\nbalance adjustments. It also could make the cog aggro mechanic more relevant\nand a bigger part of toon strategy, because normally multi-target attacks\nignore aggro since they don\u0026rsquo;t have to make any choice as to which toon to\ntarget. On the other hand, while this is interesting, it is the most invasive\nof all suggestions here in lieu of balancing multi-target vs. single-target\nattacks.\n\n###### pros\n\n- Weakens cogs. This can be a good thing when it is warranted due to cogs being\n too powerful in comparison to toons.\n- Can be an effective way of balancing single-target and multi-target cog\n attacks.\n- Makes the cog aggro mechanic more relevant ","project_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fjonathanhelianthicusdoe%2Ftrash_ideas","html_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/projects/github.com%2Fjonathanhelianthicusdoe%2Ftrash_ideas","lists_url":"https://awesome.ecosyste.ms/api/v1/projects/github.com%2Fjonathanhelianthicusdoe%2Ftrash_ideas/lists"}