Author Topic: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.  (Read 6025 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Alexander_TheGreat_

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 258
  • Infamy: 194
  • cRPG Player
  • Please, its just a Phase in my life
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Kalmar(F)union
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #60 on: November 20, 2011, 12:47:37 pm »
0
You all suck at math! Let me call 22nd_Quantum!!
he will reveal the truth. He is like a sherlock in the math world =)
I never join a clan twice, I am the most loyal player ever
I am asian I am strong
I am a Kalmar for these 2 weeks
I am cute, I am sexy
I am Phase!

Offline CaptainQuantum

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 11
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The 22nd Battalion
  • Game nicks: Quant, Quantum
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2011, 12:57:55 pm »
-2
Maths is racist.
Corrected the English there for you, a plural word when abbreviated does not become singular (despite what Americans think).

As I have said upkeep is fine, the old upkeep was far too low since it allowed me to run around with my fully heirloomed armour, which gives:
  • 59 head armour
  • 71 body armour
  • 63 leg armour

Which is far too good armour, I would not wear that all the time even if upkeep allowed for it, since that amount of armour would make me lose skill. However many would not think in the same way as me and would run around in this all the time. So for the moment I think the upkeep is at the right amount, the only problem is for cavalry, but that is meant to be expensive since you are meant to have to balance your effectiveness with cost.

By the way, Mathematics is awesome, it gave you the thing you are using to connect to this website, it gave you electricity in your house. Quite simply the logic behind Mathematics is the reason you are not a caveman (without fire).

Also to further my point, the cost of repairs over time is completely independent of how long the rounds are, which some people seem to be saying here. The repairs apply per tick, not per round and so the amount at the end of the round is dependent on the round duration, but so is the amount of gold you gain.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2011, 01:34:48 pm by CaptainQuantum »

Offline B3RS3RK

  • Earl
  • ******
  • Renown: 377
  • Infamy: 103
  • cRPG Player
  • Sexy and I know it.
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Saracen_Berserkaziz_Amir
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2011, 06:07:26 pm »
0
math sucks still.
Maybe it woud be better for me to find out where you life and kill you when you are satch a Soziopath. You have enough now.
"I don´t believe in anything, I´m just here for the violence."

Offline Skysong

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 57
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Guard_Skysong
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2011, 06:33:54 pm »
+1
Math > Maths

Offline CaptainQuantum

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 44
  • Infamy: 11
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Faction: The 22nd Battalion
  • Game nicks: Quant, Quantum
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #64 on: November 20, 2011, 07:28:14 pm »
-1
Math > Maths

Actually using Maths:
Math < Maths
Since plural implies more than singular.

Offline Skysong

  • Knight
  • ***
  • Renown: 57
  • Infamy: 10
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
  • Game nicks: Guard_Skysong
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #65 on: November 20, 2011, 08:13:05 pm »
+1
Actually using Maths:
Math < Maths
Since plural implies more than singular.

And using Math:
Math > Maths
Since Math has balls but Maths has none.

Offline Gorath

  • Count
  • *****
  • Renown: 226
  • Infamy: 168
  • cRPG Player
  • Why the hell did I do anything other than ranged?
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Chaos
  • Game nicks: The threat of physical violence should be present in all things
  • IRC nick: Otherwise we get a swarm of faggot children like the majority of the cRPG/Internet population
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #66 on: November 20, 2011, 08:38:03 pm »
+1
And using Math:
Math > Maths
Since Math has balls but Maths has none.

^
SI love youong wins that debate.

Also, despite what you non-americans think, saying "Maths" makes you sound like a fat nerd with a fucking lisp.  Hence, it is gay and not to be used.  MATH wins.  Maths loses.
And I should be nice or polite to anyone.... why exactly?

Offline Tenzek

  • Beggar
  • Renown: 0
  • Infamy: 0
  • cRPG Player
    • View Profile
Re: Why Upkeep is a Little TOO Realistic, or: Why Math is Awesome.
« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2011, 02:37:05 am »
0
Also to further my point, the cost of repairs over time is completely independent of how long the rounds are, which some people seem to be saying here. The repairs apply per tick, not per round and so the amount at the end of the round is dependent on the round duration, but so is the amount of gold you gain.

The reason round length affects the results is because you can only pay upkeep once on a given item per round. The repairs apply per tick, but they don't accumulate during the same round.

If the rounds were long enough, you'd have enough gold to pay for everything with some to spare no matter if every single item needed to be repaired.

The system works partly because rounds are so short.


Edit: I am not disagreeing with the way you're modeling the system, though. I am disagreeing with the "infinite number of ticks" excuse that's supposed to explain the original poster's lack of understanding of what he's saying. :)

You're considering an infinite number of rounds with finite numbers used to determine the results within the round. The guy claiming you can look at an infinite number of ticks is who I am commenting to. This drops out some important information that can drastically change the results.

Although I can't see the numbers used in your calculation, the notation shows you're probably including the information that the OP is missing.




 
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 03:13:48 am by Tenzek »