Remove ads

Dragon Ball: After the End

Voting is open
Reader mode
Blonddude42 said:
Assuming it does start with "Plan" which isn't always the case. And assuming you never get plans that share names.

The higher effort part comes in with copying all of the plans you want, and then copying them again whenever you want to recast your vote. Admittedly, you could just edit new votes in. Regardless of the method used, both are more effort than bare minimum to vote.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So is hunting through all the posts in the thread for plans to Like, rather than just picking things off the tally that look good.
 
Mostly-lurker here.
I've dropped in from time to time to contribute to discussion and I try to read through the discussion I can before voting.

If there's a chance I'll be making it harder for a good write-in to win, I'll withhold voting for a default option or early write-in that's only ok. On the more important votes, I'm actually less likely to vote more I'll (try to) follow the discussion closer in case I find a vote I know I want to support, or maybe suggest something worthwhile.

This time, I was just a touch too busy for this level of vote complexity. I certainly felt the sheer desperation of the situation from the more complex write-ins this time.

Ideally, if the default options are strengthened, I'd also like to see an improvement on the visibility of write-ins for the lurkers who don't go through enough of the discussion but do take enough interest to vote for a good write in. That seems like a bit of a difficult ask though. And as much as this player base sometimes needs the help with it (me included), I wouldn't want to see the default options take the place of player creativity.

For example, if the default options included a couple of the creative ideas, but one really good idea (powerball maybe), was only in write-ins, I can see the default beating the write in most of the time even if the write in generally is well liked and catching up.
 
PoptartProdigy said:
The average quester does not want to engage with the pages-long debates that produce write-in options such as we see here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For what it's worth, I'm betting that there's a much higher percentage who would like to debate more, just simply don't have the time during the day. Heck, I know I'm still amazed you can write up big posts and storylines on a fairly consistent basis.
 
LucidityWaver said:
Mostly-lurker here.
I've dropped in from time to time to contribute to discussion and I try to read through the discussion I can before voting.

If there's a chance I'll be making it harder for a good write-in to win, I'll withhold voting for a default option or early write-in that's only ok. On the more important votes, I'm actually less likely to vote more I'll (try to) follow the discussion closer in case I find a vote I know I want to support, or maybe suggest something worthwhile.

This time, I was just a touch too busy for this level of vote complexity. I certainly felt the sheer desperation of the situation from the more complex write-ins this time.

Ideally, if the default options are strengthened, I'd also like to see an improvement on the visibility of write-ins for the lurkers who don't go through enough of the discussion but do take enough interest to vote for a good write in. That seems like a bit of a difficult ask though. And as much as this player base sometimes needs the help with it (me included), I wouldn't want to see the default options take the place of player creativity.

For example, if the default options included a couple of the creative ideas, but one really good idea (powerball maybe), was only in write-ins, I can see the default beating the write in most of the time even if the write in generally is well liked and catching up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, kudos. The world needs more players like you.

My only criticism is that the space for players who don't read enough to participate in the discussion yet do read enough to constructively vote for write-ins (or, really, anything) is usually measured in Planck-units. Remember that any write-ins are inherently disadvantaged against defaults and even just earlier write-ins by the proportion of lazy, low-effort lurkers who only read the story updates and yet still have the sheer, shameless, miserable, detestable, deplorable, disgusting, defiled, profane, forsworn, oathbroken, and unmitigated audacity to vote in direct defiance of the people who have each individually spent literally orders of magnitude more time and effort collaboratively analyzing the grand strategy of the situation and context.
 
Last edited:
Another alternative would be to limit write ins to 3-4 items. That way, instead of having plans that include every idea we come up with, we are forced to choose the ones we like best. More relevant to bring more bothers, the plans stop being giant walls of text and are not as intimidating and if you disagree with something in a plan it is easier to find or make an alternative.
 
Bakkasama said:
Another alternative would be to limit write ins to 3-4 items. That way, instead of having plans that include every idea we come up with, we are forced to choose the ones we like best. More relevant to bring more bothers, the plans stop being giant walls of text and are not as intimidating and if you disagree with something in a plan it is easier to find or make an alternative.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem with that, as SimonJester noted, is that such restrictions artificially constrain Kakara's ability to try unconventional gambits. Like...if a plan wins with 3-4 relatively simple-to-try, quick gambits then one of two things happens (assuming none of them successfully resolve the fight on the spot):
  1. We get a hilariously short update which basically amounts to "here's how those 3-4 things in specific worked out, what do you want to try next?"
  2. Kakara tries the 3-4 things in the plan and then proceeds entirely outside of voter control for the rest of the fight, or at least a large subsection thereof
Both of these outcomes are undesirable, as I hope should be obvious. However, to avoid such undesirable outcomes, planmakers are therefore forced to include few if any such gambits in favor of filling their plans with broadly-applicable overall-strategy items. This is somewhat workable, but removes the ability for voters to come up with specific clever tricks (see, e.g., the Monkey Plan - not necessarily a good idea, but certainly a weird one that would have been otherwise unlikely to happen). This negatively impacts sense of ownership of any victories we achieve, and makes defeats seem less fair & more salt-inducing ("why didn't we just try X," etc. etc.).

Personally I'd favor a system that retains more room for creativity & cleverness (though I'll grant that there should be some limit on micromanagement, which is currently applied by Poptart's closer reading of more detailed plans coupled with the finite planning capabilities of any human or group thereof). I still think that my "restrict write-ins to the moratorium period & then present them for voter consideration in the end-of-moratorium post" proposal should be viable toward that end, though I'd be happy to hear any objections others have to it.
 
ShadowAngelBeta said:
The Oozaru idea is more than a little self-destructive obviously, but we are the only one who knows how to use the Golden Oozaru (off the bat at least), so it's viable in that way.

This is going to go so hilariously badly, but it'll be worse for Dandeer since it's essentially flipping the board at this point and just giving her the middle finger.

Edit: Oh. We're not looking at it. *Shrug* Still stands that we're the only one who can currently use SSJ in Oozaru form. Unless dad's been training.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Berra, Yammar, and Apra at the very least can; they used it against the dragon.

Lailoken said:
We really should get around to designing a combined power ball / solar flare technique.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Nnnnnot really? Using the power ball as an attack isn't really a thing, and for good reason: it only really hampers saiyans who never trained it, or who haven't removed their ability to go ragemonkey one way or another.

It's not an expected avenue of attack, which means that it might work against someone like Dandeer, a sorceress who lives on preparation - well, y'know, as long as she didn't Seal away her ability to go oozaru because, say, she wanted to be able to go outside at night without having to worry about the phases of the moon.
 
PoptartProdigy said:
So. In particular, I am going to be reworking this vote. In general, I am going to be taking a close look at how I engage with voting and write-ins in this quest, because this keeps happening, and I do not like it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think i've seen this be used in a quest so far, but what about posting the vote option(s) as a latter and separate thing from the story?
Say, maybe up to an hour after the story post, to let everyone read the story and discuse it, before starting to debate on the future action(s).
 
Honestly, the only borderline-functional zero-investment approach I've ever seen was the Riot Regiment system, which while very charming was deliberately farcical and not really applicable here.
 
If we're talking alterations to voting one problem that has come up is people will talk about a plan, idea, or question, Before it's directly relevant and then it's forgotten by the time it would have been helpful to include in a vote ex: berra being controlled.

Something that would let us add things to an agenda so that they'll be brought up at first relevance would be kais damned helpful. Main problem i see is it quickly becoming bloated and filled with a million unrelated ideas.
 
I'll just say this.

You can have a "no write-ins allowed" quest that strongly encourages literally everyone to vote on literally everything regardless of how much or how little time they have to think and plan about the outcomes of the votes.

OR you can have a quest where the QM is allowed to say to the voters "I'm sorry you're unhappy with this situation, but you could have done something about this problem years ago and chose not to. You have full control over the protagonists' actions; it's up to you how that control is used."

But you can't have both. Trying to have both at once isn't lawful evil GMing. It's chaotic evil GMing.

Firstly, because 'curated options only' eliminates the players' ability to say "oh yeah, we forgot to do X" and write-in a vote to do X. Or a player's ability to convince everyone else that we really need to watch out for Threat Y, and write-in a vote to do Y. Or for the players to actually use all their resources and remember and think of those resources, and specify ways to use them cleverly.

Secondly, it means that for the players to be fairly responsible for whether or not they deal with Threat Z, you have to specifically let the players vote on "Deal with Threat Z or ignore Threat Z?" Because otherwise, individual vote discussions WILL keep circling around to center on other issues and it becomes a tossup whether Threat Z gets dealt with or not. Just like how campaign promises get dropped in politics. If politicians promise to fix the roads year after year, and never do, it's probably not because voters don't want the roads fixed. It's because election dynamics discourage voters from doing something weird like finding a candidate who cares ONLY about fixing the roads, and who is supremely honest about this desire, and voting them into office.

Thirdly, if every critical vote with high risk starts attracting several dozen voters, just as planned... the odds are that not all of those voters are putting comparable amounts of thought and effort into the vote. Normally that's fine, but if there's a risk of crashing the quest by overlooking an important danger, one cannot blame the players for having made bad choices, if there are lots of people showing up to vote who don't have time to discuss whether or not they're making a bad choice.

...

Again, encouraging simplified voting means diminishing player control over events. Unless steps are taken to enable players to write-in vote on "gambits to try" or "things to worry about while preparing for the conspiracy," it means diminishing that control badly. In that case, it means decreasing player ability to prepare for contingencies or try innovative solutions to problems that the GM wouldn't immediately think of.

And when you decrease player power over events, especially when you decrease the power of the people who are willing to carefully evaluate their options and invest time figuring out what to do... Well, with minimized power comes minimized responsibility, and minimized fairness of punishing people for getting something wrong.

So to me? If all this is about is simplifying the votes, so more people can participate even when the stakes are high, without them having to engage in all that tiresome discussion and thinking beforehand... I'm against it. And I'm not sure watching Kakara repeatedly walk into walls and shoot herself in the foot because of the ensuing high-importance, low-player-information-input votes will be entertaining. I mean, that doesn't even make for good tragedy.

...

I approve wholeheartedly of the Lawful Evil GM style Poptart uses, but I believe that it comes with an implicit 'social contract' between GM and players: Namely, that the GM can drop arbitrarily large threats on the players and create arbitrarily bad situations brought about through the players' failure to prepare...

...BUT the players get the chance to use the full range of their intelligence, resources, and the preparation time their characters get, in order to deal with the problems that emerge as capably as possible.

Otherwise, one is not saying "I'll let you try anything but I don't make promises you'll like the consequences." One is just sticking people's feet in buckets of cement and then laughing at them for being unable to win footraces.

Carrnage said:
If we're talking alterations to voting one problem that has come up is people will talk about a plan, idea, or question, Before it's directly relevant and then it's forgotten by the time it would have been helpful to include in a vote ex: berra being controlled.

Something that would let us add things to an agenda so that they'll be brought up at first relevance would be kais damned helpful. Main problem i see is it quickly becoming bloated and filled with a million unrelated ideas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except Poptart is already keeping up a list of 'agenda items' and 'priorities' for Kakara. All this does is give the voterbase some meaningful influence over what ends up on the list.

...

But yes. I mean, we specifically discussed the possibility that Berra would be mind-controlled. We even discussed the possibility that Dandeer would be able to unseal Lord Vegeta and turn him to her side as a protector- I distinctly remember it coming up. But it never really mattered because there was no way we could directly translate our own notion of "maybe this is a threat we should prepare for" into "let's make a plan for this eventuality well in advance" or even "let's alert the adults to this possibility and let them plan for it." The closest we ever came to having that were the ASK votes (and I haven't seen one of those in a long time) and the "discussion impacts Kakara's thoughts" rule (which was taken out back and put out of its misery after things got weird).

We admittedly didn't think of Dandeer specifically having a way to hack control of Yammar. But if we'd at least had a chance to have a [NOTIONS] write-in vote in the 5-10 updates before the Unsealing in which we list all the obvious things that we think might go wrong and ask Dandelor/Apra/Yammar/whoever to take precautions, that would have really helped. We'd have had time to vent all our paranoia, to take proper precautions for arresting a mind-controlling witch who's had years to prepare, or at least to TRY to take precautions and have only ourselves to blame if it all went horribly wrong. We could have asked Dandelor to scan for pre-existing mind control spells on Apra or Yammar (or for that matter us). Or at least gotten the explanation that we can't scan for them.

Instead... we got this. We had a string of more or less curated votes, none of which were particularly directly connected to preventing the outcome that actually happened. About the only thing we could have done differently would have been to go Spirit Saiyan pre-emptively so that we'd have the raw power to blow through any and all of the other royals if we needed to. And I regret not choosing to do that...

But looking at it from a gameplay point of view, not voting to specifically do that thing at that specific moment in time is a far cry from not intending to take any meaningful steps to plan or prepare for Dandeer's mind control, after the playerbase had spent literally months fearfully discussing it and the weeks immediately prior to the Unsealing being terrified of it.
 
Last edited:
I am legitimately appalled by the number of people making serious arguments that amount to "FILTHY CASUALS", as if somehow only the people who "invest tens to hundreds of hours" in the Quest (whatever that actually means or looks like) are worthy enough to cast the hallowed VOTE.
Instead of a Quest inherently being about letting many people participate in something.

13 voters is not good, not for a large, healthy quest like this.

I'm not saying Poptart needs to be super-tight with restrictions, but something other than the free-for-all that we got with this vote would be nice.
A free-for-all wall-of-text "WRITE INS ARE ALWAYS BEST" mentality basically locks out people who aren't obsessively checking the forums and get in the first couple of MEGA PLANS. I mean, Heaven forbid some of us have lives and jobs and stuff outside these forums.

Can't have those filthy casuals polluting the Quest with their grubby, ill-informed finger-votes.
 
KnightDisciple said:
I am legitimately appalled by the number of people making serious arguments that amount to "FILTHY CASUALS", as if somehow only the people who "invest tens to hundreds of hours" in the Quest (whatever that actually means or looks like) are worthy enough to cast the hallowed VOTE.
Instead of a Quest inherently being about letting many people participate in something.

13 voters is not good, not for a large, healthy quest like this.

I'm not saying Poptart needs to be super-tight with restrictions, but something other than the free-for-all that we got with this vote would be nice.
A free-for-all wall-of-text "WRITE INS ARE ALWAYS BEST" mentality basically locks out people who aren't obsessively checking the forums and get in the first couple of MEGA PLANS. I mean, Heaven forbid some of us have lives and jobs and stuff outside these forums.

Can't have those filthy casuals polluting the Quest with their grubby, ill-informed finger-votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not that casuals are filthy, it's that we need BOTH a mechanism of enabling casual voters to participate AND a mechanism for enabling the people with piles of information and ideas who've been talking over all this stuff for months to actually leverage their knowledge and ideas about how to proceed into action.

In particular, we need that second thing, OR we need to drop Lawful Evil QMing, which is based entirely on the premise that the players are big kids who are capable of planning ahead, correctly ascertaining the magnitude of a threat, and figuring out how to deal with it. Without having a mechanism for the people with lots of information to make clever or good choices, you're stuck with Cushy Cushion QMing where the QM either has to do a lot of the PC's thinking for them, or has to make sure that the PC never actually needs to think very much about what to do.

Because if you remove the capacity to somehow translate judgment and knowledge directly into better courses of action, you've removed the ability of the players to take responsibility for making sure the character is well-prepared for the situations they face.

...

Poptart likes holding players responsible for their choices. Actions have consequences. I approve of this. But that's because we do have, or should have, enough flexibility for the players to make informed, rational choices. Choices that aren't limited purely to options like "okay, through minimal input of your own, you've been outmaneuvered and forced into a race against time in which you have to win a boxing match with another royal before Dandeer casts her spell. Which royal do you start boxing with?"

Now, normally we get the flexibility for players to make informed, rational choices using write-in votes. There are other ways to do that, and I have repeatedly suggested some. Those other ways have the advantages of being more accessible to low-information voters than a write-in. While still enabling high-information voters to make smart choices and promote them so that Kakara does smart things to deal with the difficult challenges of being a protagonist in a Lawful QM setting.

But one cannot just ignore the problem of needing high-information voters to have meaningful, direct ways to influence protagonist activity, while simultaneously expecting the voterbase to make accurate, appropriate choices in response to a complicated situation. You have to do something along those lines, if not allowing for write-ins, then something else.
 
@PoptartProdigy maybe do mostly what you are doing now, but save the actual voting options for when you open the vote.

Let people come up with plans. Maybe include some default options. Create a list of possible options using the help of the voters, curate the list, and then present that list for voting. Maybe include a short summary of the arguments behind each proposed vote for the important votes like this one.

This way casual questers and lurkers can have a vote that matters and the dedicated ones can get their debate on.
 
Simon_Jester said:
It's not that casuals are filthy, it's that we need BOTH a mechanism of enabling casual voters to participate AND a mechanism for enabling the people with piles of information and ideas who've been talking over all this stuff for months to actually leverage their knowledge and ideas about how to proceed into action.

In particular, we need that second thing, OR we need to drop Lawful Evil QMing, which is based entirely on the premise that the players are big kids who are capable of planning ahead, correctly ascertaining the magnitude of a threat, and figuring out how to deal with it. Without having a mechanism for the people with lots of information to make clever or good choices, you're stuck with Cushy Cushion QMing where the QM either has to do a lot of the PC's thinking for them, or has to make sure that the PC never actually needs to think very much about what to do.

Because if you remove the capacity to somehow translate judgment and knowledge directly into better courses of action, you've removed the ability of the players to take responsibility for making sure the character is well-prepared for the situations they face.

...

Poptart likes holding players responsible for their choices. Actions have consequences. I approve of this. But that's because we do have, or should have, enough flexibility for the players to make informed, rational choices. Choices that aren't limited purely to options like "okay, through minimal input of your own, you've been outmaneuvered and forced into a race against time in which you have to win a boxing match with another royal before Dandeer casts her spell. Which royal do you start boxing with?"

Now, normally we get the flexibility for players to make informed, rational choices using write-in votes. There are other ways to do that, and I have repeatedly suggested some. Those other ways have the advantages of being more accessible to low-information voters than a write-in. While still enabling high-information voters to make smart choices and promote them so that Kakara does smart things to deal with the difficult challenges of being a protagonist in a Lawful QM setting.

But one cannot just ignore the problem of needing high-information voters to have meaningful, direct ways to influence protagonist activity, while simultaneously expecting the voterbase to make accurate, appropriate choices in response to a complicated situation. You have to do something along those lines, if not allowing for write-ins, then something else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
"Filthy Casuals" was literally typed a few posts ago by someone that multiple people have said "You're totally correct about what Poptart should do", so it's a bit frustrating to have someone act like that sort of language isn't being used.

As well, the idea of "needing high-information voters" is a bit odd...everyone has access to the Quest? I would think you of all people would be leery of creating a sort of "upper class" of Quest Voters, with as vocal as you've been in the past about separation of information in Quests where there's a Discord.

For me this is as much about attitude as anything; this idea that the healthiest Quest are the ones that explicitly reward people who pour huge amounts of time and focus into nit-picking over-detailed plans that effectively lock out engagement by people even slightly less invested than those people.

The fact that the top 2 plans (before things got scrubbed) were basically identical and had all the momentum, and a notably different plan that explicitly and intentionally didn't incorporate items was unlikely to gain momentum because it was more than 2 hours newer doesn't help.

When we get giant write-in plans like what we had, with labyrinths of if-then conditions, part of the problem can be that if the two leading plans are nearly identical (which these were) getting more explicitly unique plans in play is highly difficult.

And if the first couple plans are explicitly made by High Information Voters (is there a badge or something they get?), but the next plan (well-constructed that it might be) isn't, doesn't that implicitly favor the first plans?
 
DarknessSmiles said:
@PoptartProdigy maybe do mostly what you are doing now, but save the actual voting options for when you open the vote.

Let people come up with plans. Maybe include some default options. Create a list of possible options using the help of the voters, curate the list, and then present that list for voting. Maybe include a short summary of the arguments behind each proposed vote for the important votes like this one.

This way casual questers and lurkers can have a vote that matters and the dedicated ones can get their debate on.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stealing this idea for my own quests...
 
Personally I think one of the main reasons few people were voting this time wasn't only the length of the plans, but also the fact that there was only really one plan and everybody basically agreed to it. That's the reason I didn't vote this time, at least, since I thought the winning plans were pretty decent and so didn't really bother to vote for either one.

If there were two radically different plans with how to deal with this fight, there'd probably be more votes, but a broad consensus doesn't really incentivize people to voting. Once there's consesus, combat votes tend to have people bandwagon on one plan until a better one is found, which normally involves more and more stuff being added to the vote each time, which likely discourages people from bothering to vote.

Of course, I personally rather like consensus-based combat votes, and even if they did cause me to not bother voting this time that was more because I agreed with the consensus (make an Oozaru clone and try to knock Dandeer out first) than because I disagreed.
 
Did... Did I miss something big? I never got the impression that Poptart was even considering removing write-ins entirely and going all maximum casual, like some people seem to be arguing against. Being worried about intimidating people doesn't mean immediately going to the opposite extreme!
 
Bommelom said:
Personally I think one of the main reasons few people were voting this time wasn't only the length of the plans, but also the fact that there was only really one plan and everybody basically agreed to it. That's the reason I didn't vote this time, at least, since I thought the winning plans were pretty decent and so didn't really bother to vote for either one.

If there were two radically different plans with how to deal with this fight, there'd probably be more votes, but a broad consensus doesn't really incentivize people to voting. Once there's consesus, combat votes tend to have people bandwagon on one plan until a better one is found, which normally involves more and more stuff being added to the vote each time, which likely discourages people from bothering to vote.

Of course, I personally rather like consensus-based combat votes, and even if they did cause me to not bother voting this time that was more because I agreed with the consensus (make an Oozaru clone and try to knock Dandeer out first) than because I disagreed.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There was "really only one plan" for a period of time, but not in absolute.
Let's look at the timeline.
Update drops Tuesday at 12:30am EST.
Discussion, questions, answers, plan drafts occur.
Vote opens Tuesday at 10:56pm EST, almost 24 hours later.
The first major plan (adapted from an already-large draft plan) is posted perhaps an hour later near midnight EST.
The second major plan, a slight revision of the first, is posted at not-quite 4am EST Wednesday (yesterday).
The third plan, pulling elements from the first two but much different in other ways, is posted at approximately 8:45pm EST Wednesday (yesterday).

So the first "diverging" plan was posted less than 24 hours after the vote opened. I didn't spend 10 pages extolling the specific virtues of my plan, no, but it was still a specifically-written plan.

The issue isn't that there wasn't a different plan, it's that there wasn't a different plan within 2-4 hours of the first couple of plans, and it hadn't had 3-4 people writing even-longer posts arguing its merit for that whole period of time.

If that level of "investment" is what's "necessary" for Quest "health", we're never going to have a vibrant thread, it's going to be the same half-dozen talking heads rehashing the same few plans for eternity.
 
Akiri said:
Did... Did I miss something big? I never got the impression that Poptart was even considering removing write-ins entirely and going all maximum casual, like some people seem to be arguing against. Being worried about intimidating people doesn't mean immediately going to the opposite extreme!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You missed nothing, and your first impression was correct.
 
There were other plans though. I voted for these three for example:

Bakkasama said:
I think the priority should be stopping Dandeer from casting whatever spell she is doing. For that, I think the best option is making an Oozaru clone (which would be too tough to be killed in one move) and then going for Dandeer. That way we would have 3 FPSS to counter hers and an extra body to attack her. If Berra attacks the Oozaru, our FPSS knocks her out and if Berra attacks our FPSS, the Oozaru knocks her out. If Vegeta tries to intervene, Jaffur ends up free and can kill her.

[][FIGHT] Plan Spirit Monkey
-[][FIGHT] Disengage and let Jaffur engage them for a bit. Use the time he buys to make a clone using multiform and have it transform into Oozaru while Kakara remains FPSS.
-[][FIGHT] Go after Dandeer and stop her from preparing a spell. If one of her guards attack one of the clones, the other clone can deal with Dandeer and if both do, Jaffur can do so.
-[][FIGHT] Once Dandeer is neutralized, Oozaru charges a genki dama while Kakara fights Berra so that she can go Spirit Saiyan.

[ ][FIGHT] Plan Two Become One
-[][FIGHT] Disengage and let Jaffur engage them for a bit. Use the time he buys to make a clone using multiform and have it transform into Oozaru while Kakara remains FPSS.
-[][FIGHT] Go after Dandeer and stop her from preparing a spell. If one of her guards attack one of the clones, the other clone can deal with Dandeer and if both do, Jaffur can do so.
-[][FIGHT] Once Dandeer is neutralized, the Oozaru gives her ki to FPSS Kakara while the later lowers her super saiyan boost so as to not surpass the power level a golden oozaru would have. Then she fights Berra.

[ ][FIGHT] Plan Do it with (Tien) Style!
-[][FIGHT] Disengage and let Jaffur engage them for a bit. Use the time he buys to make a clone using multiform and have it transform into Oozaru while Kakara remains FPSS.
-[][FIGHT] Go after Dandeer and stop her from preparing a spell. If one of her guards attack one of the clones, the other clone can deal with Dandeer and if both do, Jaffur can do so.
-[][FIGHT] Once Dandeer is neutralized, help distract Yammar so that Apra can disengage and make a clone. Apra's clone transforms into oozaru and uses Ki Overload to blitz Berra and defeat him in one move.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top