After a small hiatus making The Argon (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=424444 ) and a few other settings, I have returned to re-writing the core rules for my game.

Here is the "Set Up"

Sets (collections of character elements) have an impact of .05x per total element point used to make them. A set with ten element points worth of gifts and two element points worth of flaws (10-2) 8x.05x  or .4x Up to ten element points positive or negative can be in a set, so their impact ranges from +.5x to -.5x

The character has a total impact equal to its aspect sets, core sets, developing sets, and expanding sets.
A+C+D+E = total impact.

Here is my issue.

The core focus.
This is the one set that every character will have. A character should have the full 10 element points worth of skills in it. (The skills in the core focus uses slightly different rules than skills in normal sets.) For every element point they don't use, they get an impact of -.05x. It reflects the flaw of not using all the core focus.

I changed the impact of these an edition back. The original formula for impact was
A+C+D+E-1 = total impact. The core focus was just an odd set there, called the core set, with the normal costs.

I changed to make players go "Hmmm" about not using all 10 element points in the core focus/ set. It also made the math easier.

So I am reviewing a lot about the game, as it is written.

Is it better to have the consistency of every set using the exact same formula and use the -1 adjustment in the formula? ...
Advantages: consistency, simplicity.
Disadvantage, Core focus is just another set, there is that adjustment thing tacked on

Or should I keep it different?
Advantages: reinforces the differences in the core focus, makes the final impact formula slightly easier.
Disadvantage less consistence and simplicity.

I was wondering what others think. The playtesters are kind of "eh" about the issue.