Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Warlock
Seriously dude, go take a community college course in mathematics. It only effects the DIFFERENCE between the two player's contested builds...

Like this change will make it so there will suddenly be more than one way to win? Everyone already follows the same fucking blueprint to build dots. It's called taking the more effective attributes to high levels and then taking the more effective SAs/VAs/AEQ to further enhance the more effective attributes. Fucking please. This only changes which AEQ will be more effective, it won't change a fucking thing.

That's the point.

And my math is fine, so is yours really. You're just not applying it right.

Originally posted by TxSteve
nice write up PP - can you come back in this thread and post that every 3 pages or so?

It wouldn't matter if it was the first post on every page. Some ppl are pissed, and it's understandable. It's frustrating when your build plan is altered. I've been there and done that way more than I'd care to remember and I get it. The only thing I have any issue with is when ppl start screaming that their builds are now worthless, when that just isn't true. Rawss has one of the more unique cases in this, and this most likely impacts the dot he keeps referring to more than 99% of the rest of GLB. Would I be overly happy if I were in his shoes? Hell no. However, even his dot is far from ruined because of this. Hell, I'd take over that build in a heartbeat, if I could. He makes good dots, and IF that dot was going to turn into a int machine with 75% int chance, he'll still be an int machine with 37.5% int chance, particularly since he won't be going against QBs with 75% pass quality.

The ones that don't see that will continue to be pissed no matter what a person has to say...And, though I think one is hard pressed to try to make an intelligent argument this isn't a very needed change, more so for the future when the glut of dots all saving BTs for 3 stacking % pieces come up, well, nothing said will change their mind and I understand why they are frustrated. Unfortunately, this lvl of stacking never should have been allowed to happen and it needs to change.

Originally posted by Warlock
Seriously...

I know full well how it works. +46% bonus chance NEVER EVER doubles or triples a player's effectiveness... it's a mathematical impossibility.

The problem is that you aren't rolling against a set number...you are rolling against another player.

Let's take the following two players:
HB - Break Tackle roll between 30 and 60, average 45.
LB - Make Tackle roll between 30 and 60 average 45.

So, its' a 50/50 shot before you take into account sure tackler, death grip or other non-make tackle bonuses.

Now, give the HB a +46% and he's now rolling 43.8 to 87.6, average 65.7.

Now the HB's AVERAGE break tackle roll is higher than the LBers maximum break tackle roll. This is why the +AEQ% are overpowered because if you stack enough of them and your opponent can't match you can significantly improve your abilities compared to their ability to stop you.

If folks had been following the Csonka discussion way back when and the changes to Sure Tackler you would have known that there were lots of situations when the minimum break tackle roll by some power backs were higher than the maximum roll of those trying to tackle them basically granting an auto-break tackle and an unstoppable player. Bort's obviously changed things for the better so this can't happen...but it's still a problem with folks stacking 40-60% on the same %.

Catch22 knows this and it's why he's pushed for a change. It was definitely needed.

Originally posted by Fumanchuchu
That's the point.

And my math is fine, so is yours really. You're just not applying it right.

So the point is to shift what type of AEQ everyone currently takes to a different type of AEQ that everyone will take? Makes a lot of sense...

No your math is not fine. Here's an example why... a pizza delivery boy delivers a pizza and the price is $25, three guys all pitch in $10 each to cover the cost. The delivery boy pockets $2 as a tip and gives each guy back $1... if each guy paid $9 (9*3=27) and the pizza boy kept $2 (27+2=29), where did the 30th dollar go?

The answer is that when you use the incorrect order of operations (i.e. PEMDAS), it changes the equation.

Your math is incorrect because you're not using the proper order of operations, which is changing the equation and thus giving you an incorrect answer.

Originally posted by Warlock
No your math is not fine. Here's an example why... a pizza delivery boy delivers a pizza and the price is $25, three guys all pitch in $10 each to cover the cost. The delivery boy pockets $2 as a tip and gives each guy back $1... if each guy paid $9 (9*3=27) and the pizza boy kept $2 (27+2=29), where did the 30th dollar go?

The answer is that when you use the incorrect order of operations (i.e. PEMDAS), it changes the equation.

WTF? Pizza Boy kept 25 (cost of pizza) + 2 (tip) = 27 which equals what the three guys paid out. Simple enough.

Originally posted by PackMan97
The problem is that you aren't rolling against a set number...you are rolling against another player.

Let's take the following two players:
HB - Break Tackle roll between 30 and 60, average 45.
LB - Make Tackle roll between 30 and 60 average 45.

So, its' a 50/50 shot before you take into account sure tackler, death grip or other non-make tackle bonuses.

Now, give the HB a +46% and he's now rolling 43.8 to 87.6, average 65.7.

Now the HB's AVERAGE break tackle roll is higher than the LBers maximum break tackle roll. This is why the +AEQ% are overpowered because if you stack enough of them and your opponent can't match you can significantly improve your abilities compared to their ability to stop you.

If folks had been following the Csonka discussion way back when and the changes to Sure Tackler you would have known that there were lots of situations when the minimum break tackle roll by some power backs were higher than the maximum roll of those trying to tackle them basically granting an auto-break tackle and an unstoppable player. Bort's obviously changed things for the better so this can't happen...but it's still a problem with folks stacking 40-60% on the same %.

Catch22 knows this and it's why he's pushed for a change. It was definitely needed.

The problem is that it's not a 50/50 chance to break a tackle when two equally well built contested builds face off. Thus, that example has zero relevance. In-fact, my estimation would be more like 5-10% chance to break a tackle with those controls. If it was a 50/50 chance with those controls, I would totally agree, but it's not and never ever was. While it was possible to have a well-built player attain an automatic success when facing a poorly built player, that had way more to do with how contested builds measured up than +% bonuses.

Originally posted by PackMan97
WTF? Pizza Boy kept 25 (cost of pizza) + 2 (tip) = 27 which equals what the three guys paid out. Simple enough.

It's an example of why it's important to use the proper order of operations, by performing the addition/subtraction before the multiplication, it's changes the equation's answer.

there seems to be a lot of discussions that revolve around exactly when/how/where the tackle / break tackle roll is computed...


but as far as I know - Bort is the only one who really knows how it works, correct?

everything else is just guess work

Warlock.../facepalm

Originally posted by Warlock
Really, how do you figure?

Power back: 100 strength, 75 carrying, +69% break tackle chance AEQ and 15 bruiser

Vs.

Run-stuffing LB: 100 strength, 75 tackling, +69% make tackle chance AEQ and 15 david vs goliath

How valuable is that +% bonus in that contest of builds?
I never said that AE can't cancel itself out. The whole argument however, is that one player having 3 pieces of +% AE makes a player at the opposite position worthless in those rolls without that same AE. Hence it's mega mega overpowered and bad for the game.

This change is still leaving +% AE as the #1 choice btw, just nerfed down to not break the game at high levels. Also, you are talking as if every position has the ability to and will choose the same SA if +% AE isn't there (which simply isn't true).

I'm done with this whole thing with you btw, since it seems clear you won't listen to others and alter your opinion/understanding of math regardless. Best of luck, ect.

Originally posted by Warlock
The problem is that it's not a 50/50 chance to break a tackle when two equally well built contested builds face off. Thus, that example has zero relevance. In-fact, my estimation would be more like 5-10% chance to break a tackle with those controls. If it was a 50/50 chance with those controls, I would totally agree, but it's not and never ever was. While it was possible to have a well-built player attain an automatic success when facing a poorly built player, that had way more to do with how contested builds measured up than +% bonuses.

My point was that the % AEQ can greatly boost a player, far more than any other type of AEQ.

A 10% chance to break doesn't become a 15% chance to break with +50% AEQ...it is much more.

Let's run the numbers again, assuming a 12.5% chance (because the math is easier for me).

HB: 20-30 to break. avg of 25
LB: 20-60 to make, average of 40

Now, slap +60% AEQ on the HB.

HB: 32-48 to break average of 40
LB: 20-60 to make average of 40

So, we've gone from a 12.5% chance to break to a 50% chance to break.

That is the power of the +% AEQ. It's not a modifier on your success, it's a modifier on your roll!

i like it

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
I never said that AE can't cancel itself out. The whole argument however, is that one player having 3 pieces of +% AE makes a player at the opposite position worthless in those rolls without that same AE. Hence it's mega mega overpowered and bad for the game.

This change is still leaving +% AE as the #1 choice btw, just nerfed down to not break the game at high levels. Also, you are talking as if every position has the ability to and will choose the same SA if +% AE isn't there (which simply isn't true).

I'm done with this whole thing with you btw, since it seems clear you won't listen to others and alter your opinion/understanding of math regardless. Best of luck, ect.

Unfortunately, I'd like to see evidence that a player merely lacking +% AEQ, is worthless in comparison to a player that has stacked 3 pieces of it. This is assuming a a good match-up of contested builds, just minus the +% AEQ.

You see, it's ignorant and short-sighted to nerf something, when it's not even the cause of the perceived problem. The math just doesn't add up to +% being the root of the problem. Nor do the proposed changes fix anything,they just shuffle it around some.

Originally posted by WiSeIVIaN
...There will never have been a time where +46% (or 69%) AE wasn't the absolutely best for a QB, HB, ect ect...

You made a false statement and I corrected you. +46% AE is not better than +10 to an SA when the contesting build cancels out your +% bonus. That is just one example of a time when it is not "the absolutely best" choice. Thus, once more players are built to actually counter specialized builds, the natural order of things lessens the impact of the +% AEQ (aka nerf). Which means that if nerfed by the developers, it will suffer a second nerf to effectiveness once people adapt... Just like what happened to DEs back in the day.

Originally posted by PackMan97
My point was that the % AEQ can greatly boost a player, far more than any other type of AEQ.

A 10% chance to break doesn't become a 15% chance to break with +50% AEQ...it is much more.

Let's run the numbers again, assuming a 12.5% chance (because the math is easier for me).

HB: 20-30 to break. avg of 25
LB: 20-60 to make, average of 40

Now, slap +60% AEQ on the HB.

HB: 32-48 to break average of 40
LB: 20-60 to make average of 40

So, we've gone from a 12.5% chance to break to a 50% chance to break.

That is the power of the +% AEQ. It's not a modifier on your success, it's a modifier on your roll!

Thank god someone gets it.

Originally posted by Warlock
Unfortunately, this is not factoring in reality. Even against CPU players, my FB never came close to winning 75% of his break tackle rolls... that's with anywhere from +44% to +224% break tackle chance worth of bonuses (all break tackle VAs active). Typically he ran around winning 50% of his rolls, generally with a far superior bonus than +46% or +69%. Adding another +50% would not have increased his effectiveness by 100%, sorry.

Firstly, I just threw out random numbers as an example. No one should be winning 75% of their break tackle rolls in a decent sim (against reasonable competition). When I was talking about increase of rolls won from 50%-75%, I was thinking more like break block rolls or something more inherently even than break tackle rolls. Anyway PP's breakdown does a much better job of explaining why +46% chance equipment can easily double your effectiveness.
Secondly, no shit if you already have +244% break tackle chance then adding +50% break tackle chance isn't going to double your effectiveness. I was talking more going from 0 bonus to +50% bonus.