1
General / Re: Skeptic's notes
« on: January 03, 2015, 03:50:37 pm »
Well I didn't want to do this, but I guess now is the perfect time to reveal that I'm actually a wealthy Nigerian prince and that I will fund the whole game.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: [1] 2
2
Diplomacy / Re: United Kingdoms of Calradia attack on Fearichen
« on: November 09, 2011, 01:22:46 pm »
After leaving fearichen I have been assault by these guys... They have made themselves another enemy to the ranks... come at me. 
3
Events & Tournaments / Re: AEF AUS Nov Tournament
« on: October 30, 2011, 11:15:37 am »
LETS DO IT NOVEMBER!
4
Events & Tournaments / Re: AEF AUS Oct Tournament
« on: October 21, 2011, 02:55:02 pm »
Free money i say
5
Events & Tournaments / Re: AEF AUS Oct Tournament
« on: October 18, 2011, 08:51:01 am »
Hooray for tournaments!
8
Game Balance Discussion / Re: Nerf Elite Scimmitar
« on: July 26, 2011, 09:27:43 am »All I know about the scimi is that the best players in Australia use it. And with it I have seen them wipe out groups of 5 or more people on there own. Last week the server made it 2 vs 12 and they still one. I know that their rediculas ability isn't just because of the scimi but I do know that they are a little bit less dangerous when they use other weapons (only a tiny bit).That said If all the common users of the elite scimitar were to fight me at once. my chance of victory is about 3 -4 times better if they used any other weapon.
9
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 12:33:08 pm »You're missing that the 20/3 was for losing teams only while the 5/4 was for both teams, regardless of winning or losing and yesterday it got changed again.Oh yea good point!
10
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 11:35:31 am »
There is no need to track this stuff. I think he should just post the formulas show the math. Everyone can then agree that it works. Then anyone who comes here whinging can be shunned off.
What is his current statement on the Average Gear Score?
Because given that he changed it from.
20% cost at 3% chance.
to
5% cost at 4% chance.
Thats a rather large factor change.
What is his current statement on the Average Gear Score?
Because given that he changed it from.
20% cost at 3% chance.
to
5% cost at 4% chance.
Thats a rather large factor change.
11
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 11:17:32 am »
What I can say is that the changes from. .200 -> 0.201.
Amount to 1/3rd of the cost before hand.(theoretical)
From a factor of .006 to .002 By the cost.
I'm not supporting or condemning the first formulas.
But people shouldn't consider them to be absolute fact.
They don't seem that wrong to me. And it would be hard to tell anyway unless you compare your data to other peoples.
As for the formula... It's breakable.. People will just need to do some experimentation.
Get Person A to wear only 1 item.
and Person B to wear all of Them.
Record: Number of resource events, and number of items breaking.
Comparing data from Person A and person B over say 20-30 rounds. Would make it possible to able deduce if it rolls based on the amount of items.
Then using the number of events E and the number of items breaking included 0 events.(N)
It should be possible to work out a relationship.
However I'm unable to collect such data so I'll leave that to someone else...
The First Post Account for a scenario where all the items are rolled for individually.
I donno I'd give it a 70% chance.. Its hard to say because I have a problem with decay working at the moment.
Amount to 1/3rd of the cost before hand.(theoretical)
From a factor of .006 to .002 By the cost.
I'm not supporting or condemning the first formulas.
But people shouldn't consider them to be absolute fact.
They don't seem that wrong to me. And it would be hard to tell anyway unless you compare your data to other peoples.
As for the formula... It's breakable.. People will just need to do some experimentation.
Get Person A to wear only 1 item.
and Person B to wear all of Them.
Record: Number of resource events, and number of items breaking.
Comparing data from Person A and person B over say 20-30 rounds. Would make it possible to able deduce if it rolls based on the amount of items.
Then using the number of events E and the number of items breaking included 0 events.(N)
It should be possible to work out a relationship.
However I'm unable to collect such data so I'll leave that to someone else...
The First Post Account for a scenario where all the items are rolled for individually.
I donno I'd give it a 70% chance.. Its hard to say because I have a problem with decay working at the moment.
12
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 10:07:02 am »You are missing the point mate. You are trying to make something very comlicated into a simple equasion and that doesn't work.
As i said.. sit back and wait how it works out =)
I have not seen the code and the original calculations that determine the true values and neither have you afaik. We just do not have the complete picture unless chadz really posts all the formulas , wich he has not and probably wont.
Hey newtons laws are basic. and we design complex systems around them. Probability isn't and never was an exact science but rather shows you and overall projection when plugged in with lots of data.
Awesome, I was thinking about trying to work this out myself but wasn't sure how. I dont understand what your trying to achieve with SD in your other post tho.
even though in theory anyone should be able to upkeep 47.5k with ease [(1.9x20)x25], it definitely does feel alot harder than that ingame. I was using <20k gear for a long time about 1 million exp's worth and only recently started to make any profit. and I see 5 items breaking at once fairly regulary, which should be very unlikely. so I have a feeling the numbers we have been given are wrong.
Standard deviation is used to predict the variance of where people will sit below and above the mean. So you would be able to predict that the top 10% of players (do the random nature of luck and skill) would be able to maintain x Gold of equipment. ... It ahh just doesn't work in this example at all...
Now but a bigger issue? I'm not sure about this 4% thing? is this a 4% chance that a Random item will break? Because this could be abused by spawning with low end items then dropping them! Or is it rolled for every item?
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
The in right side of the graph is ment to have the same area as the left side of the graph.
Where as the x axis shows the Avg. Multiplier, The y Axis is ment to be an indication of the probablity. The area below the line shows (or is ment to if made properly) the amount of people..
13
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 08:59:41 am »Ramble Ramble Ramble.You don't need to plug in every absolute condition and please refer to my first post where I have assumed a 50% chance of victory.
Sit back and wait and look at how the balance works out over time and stop trying to create arguments with pseudofancy maths.
First of all the chance of an item breaking from what has been told. is directly prepositional to the amount of resource ticks so the length of time becomes irrelevant!
Its ment to be a 4% chance per tick.
If you want to plug in ABSOLUTELY EVERY CONDITION then you will find that true randomness doesn't even EXIST EVER.
As autobalance is designed to work on a 50/50 chance it will be safe enough to asume it does its job well..
As I said Amusing a 50% of victory the average exp modifier is 1.94.. That is a MATHEMATICAL STATISTIC.
14
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 07:33:45 am »
I've been unable to apply any Probability distribution that makes sense so far..
The standard deviation works out to be 1.183
Which would mean that 68.2% of people would have an average multiplier of 0.7545 -> 3.1205
Under the sustainable 25000 gold per x1 multiplier model. Which is a logical one.
That would mean 16% of people would be able to sustain over 78000 gold..
The issue is I think that you can't apply Standard deviation to this example.. as if projects people out of the Limits of the range 1->5
However with the Avg calculated. 1.94 * 25000 the Average sustainable amount seems to be 48500. This is really to high!
----edit---
The standard deviation works out to be 1.183
Which would mean that 68.2% of people would have an average multiplier of 0.7545 -> 3.1205
Under the sustainable 25000 gold per x1 multiplier model. Which is a logical one.
That would mean 16% of people would be able to sustain over 78000 gold..
The issue is I think that you can't apply Standard deviation to this example.. as if projects people out of the Limits of the range 1->5
However with the Avg calculated. 1.94 * 25000 the Average sustainable amount seems to be 48500. This is really to high!
----edit---
I would claim that any average player can easily upkeep 30k of equip.This is a mathematical discussion.
15
General Discussion / Re: Upkeep Maths
« on: January 10, 2011, 06:37:18 am »
Assuming a 50% chance to win.
The probably of your multiplier at any one point is as follows!
x1:50%
x2:25%
x3:12.5%
x4:6.25%
x5:6.25% (this is because as a cap it will loop back onto its own multiplier)
Therefore:
The Average multiplier is 1.9375
Watch this space for some pretty graphs.
The probably of your multiplier at any one point is as follows!
x1:50%
x2:25%
x3:12.5%
x4:6.25%
x5:6.25% (this is because as a cap it will loop back onto its own multiplier)
Therefore:
The Average multiplier is 1.9375
Watch this space for some pretty graphs.
Pages: [1] 2