Wesnoth 1.0: Northerners vs Northerners, the basics from me

elricz · Post by **elricz** » October 26th, 2006, 5:48 pm

Angry Andersen wrote:Having defence of 30% instead of 40% will result in being hit 16.6% more often while having 50% instead of 60% will result in being hit 25% more often. So the point that the difference isn't the same is valid.

The beauty of statistics. If a unit receive 100 attacks, you can expect the same absolute difference on hits on the two cases (70-60=10, 50-40=10), but if you look at the growth (70/60-1=16%, 50/40-1=25%), suddenly one is better than the other.
Does this makes it a valid/invalid point? Depending on how you look at the numbers, it will be either one.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » October 26th, 2006, 9:18 pm

yeah, but an absolute difference becomes relatively more important when the base number is lower.

in other words, an increase of 10 points (that's how you name "static" increases in %) is better when you have a base of 30% than when you have a base of 50%, because in one case you get +33,33%, while in the other you get "only" +20%.

elricz · Post by **elricz** » October 26th, 2006, 9:53 pm

Gus wrote:yeah, but an absolute difference becomes relatively more important when the base number is lower.

in other words, an increase of 10 points (that's how you name "static" increases in %) is better when you have a base of 30% than when you have a base of 50%, because in one case you get +33,33%, while in the other you get "only" +20%.

That is the same point as before, having raised a 33% percent doesn't change the fact that you have only gained 10% on each individual roll.

Of course, this difference is important when we calculate the probabilities for more than one attack. For example, the probability of remain unharmed after 3 attacks in the four cases here is:
30% -> 2.7% (0.3^3)
40% -> 6.4% (0.4^3)
50% -> 12.5% (0.5^3)
60% -> 21.6% (0.6^3)

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that the next blow still have only 10% less possibilities of landing.

My point is not that the initial statement is valid or not, it is just that you can play with the numbers all that you want to get to the desired conclusion.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » October 26th, 2006, 10:52 pm

You don't gain 10 percents, you gain 10 points. That's precisely why it's not the same thing.
It would be the same thing if it was 30 => 40 and 50 => 66.66 (both numbers would have gotten a 33% increase). But if you add an _absolute_ value to percents, then it's not the same.

JW · Post by JW » October 26th, 2006, 11:30 pm

Okay, I'll ad 30% to the defense of my Fencer and 30% to the defense of your Wose.

Let's see who wins now.

gg math wizard.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » October 26th, 2006, 11:54 pm

I'm not sure what you want to illustrate by that

JW · Post by JW » October 27th, 2006, 12:13 am

Gus wrote:I'm not sure what you want to illustrate by that

I'm trying to show that you're right and elriscz is wrong by saying that my 100% defense Fencer will beat his 70% defense Wose, even though the absolute value added to defense was the same.

Higher Game · Post by **Higher Game** » October 27th, 2006, 1:21 am

Going from 10 to 20 percent means you dodge twice as much, but it's worthless because you're still not dodging much, and you'll still get wailed on. Going from 80 to 90 percent means you get hit half as much, which is a MUCH bigger deal.

So, 30 and 40 percent aren't much different because the odds still favor getting hit. 50 and 60 percent are VERY different, since you go from an even chance to having the odds in your favor, and 1 hit can mean life or death to a wolf rider.

They're still much weaker than elf scouts due to no ranged attack. Newbies who complained about their village defense don't understand the game as well as the experts.

JW · Post by JW » October 27th, 2006, 2:03 am

Higher Game wrote:They're still much weaker than elf scouts due to no ranged attack. Newbies who complained about their village defense don't understand the game as well as the experts.

Right, because those "newbies" are also the same ones who actually care to stand on villages?

Higher Game · Post by **Higher Game** » October 27th, 2006, 3:39 am

No, those newbies are the ones who DON'T stand on villages and let wolf riders take them, and then complain that the wolf rider is too hard to kill. Riders have no range attack or good resistances. Their village defense was their defining factor.

JW · Post by JW » October 27th, 2006, 4:01 am

Higher Game wrote:No, those newbies are the ones who DON'T stand on villages and let wolf riders take them, and then complain that the wolf rider is too hard to kill. Riders have no range attack or good resistances. Their village defense was their defining factor.

You mean, other than their 8mp for a Northerner, and 3 melee attacks?

-edit-

plus levelling to get more moves and a possible fire melee with slow ranged?

elricz · Post by **elricz** » October 27th, 2006, 4:27 am

JW wrote:I'm trying to show that you're right and elriscz is wrong by saying that my 100% defense Fencer will beat his 70% defense Wose, even though the absolute value added to defense was the same.

You are right, on the real game, where there is more than one attack, it really matters having numbers closer to the extreme. I knew that, the figures for I wrote for three attacks really show that, and the case of one shot that I was stating has no practical use, so it is pointless, sorry for the waste of time.

I any case, my math is enough to never bet against a 100%, I can see how dumb I am looking.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » October 27th, 2006, 5:45 am

JW wrote:I'm trying to show that you're right and elriscz is wrong by saying that my 100% defense Fencer will beat his 70% defense Wose, even though the absolute value added to defense was the same.

That's what i understood, but i wanted to make sure i understood correctly, sorry about that =)

@Higher Game
Your reasonning is flawed... but if you haven't figured out why with all the examples, it's no use telling you again, i guess.

PS: i'm still eagerly waiting to watch those replays of yours.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » October 27th, 2006, 9:44 am

JW wrote:
Higher Game wrote:No, those newbies are the ones who DON'T stand on villages and let wolf riders take them, and then complain that the wolf rider is too hard to kill. Riders have no range attack or good resistances. Their village defense was their defining factor.
You mean, other than their 8mp for a Northerner, and 3 melee attacks?

No, he means their defining factor among scouts, and I quite agree with him.

Multiplayer Scenarios / Campaigns · Post by **Rhuvaen** » October 27th, 2006, 10:14 am

Higher Game wrote:No, those newbies are the ones who DON'T stand on villages and let wolf riders take them, and then complain that the wolf rider is too hard to kill. [...]Their village defense was their defining factor.

So, on the one hand their village defense was their defining factor, yet it doesn't really matter? Contradictory messages. And scouts naturally occupy border villages...

JW wrote:You mean, other than their 8mp for a Northerner, and 3 melee attacks?

None of that is special for a scout. Neither does a base unit need to be nerfed for its upgrades, unless the MP devs run out of ideas.

It's just not a good idea to have a combatant-scout with high village defense. Period.