Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

azazel the cat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.

You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.

...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...

I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.

I'll stop caring if you are uninformed.

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.

Nope.

Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.

ShumaGorath wrote:

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.

Nope.

Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.

Still wrong. 100% of current effectiveness is just that. 150% of current effectiveness is an increase of 50%.

D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

3+ means you have 4 numbers of 6 to hit. That means increasing from a 3+ to a 2+ is a relative increase of 25% (one more number when you already have four) however this is only a 16.7% overall increase, as a 3+ gives you a 66.7% chance overall on a single D6, whereas a 2+ gives you an 83.3% chance overall on a single D6.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.

You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.

...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...

I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.

I'll stop caring if you are uninformed.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a statistician here! A master of the trade! One trained in the ways of the mathematical lexicon of statistics!

azazel the cat wrote:D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

You are still hung up on an abstract example. I am sorry for confusing you more than you already were.

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:150% effectiveness would imply that the effect is done 1.5 times.

Nope.

Yep. 100% effectiveness implies the effect occurs in it's totality fully. 150% implies an overage that is case specific. You need to utilize qualifiers better.

Still wrong. 100% of current effectiveness is just that. 150% of current effectiveness is an increase of 50%.

Oh, look. You used a qualifier. Do you know what the difference is between saying current and not saying current? The syntax of the mathematics you are describing. In other words IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. Please apply these terms universally and carefully, you are not using the qualifiers in a steady manner and they are exceptionally important when discussing this stuff.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

ph34r wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:No. Your effectiveness between 3+ and 2+ is 66.8 to 83.5. A 16.7% increase. The relative effectiveness between the two totals is much larger, but that's not a useful metric for much of anything aside from measuring compounding interest or doing icnorrect math hammer.

83.5/66.8=1.25
2+ is 25% more effective than 3+. It is a 25% increase in effectiveness from the old value.

You can keep touting the flat 16.7% relative to 100% increase as much as you want, but it is not a useful number.

...unless you are trying to build an army or play Warhammer 40k...

I'm trying to tell you that you are misleading yourself. I've give you examples of instances such as "50% more effective" or "twice as effective (100% more effective)" but you won't have them.

I'll stop caring if you are uninformed.

If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:D6 rolls:
3+ = 66.7% chance
2+ = 83.3% chance

Are we not talking about the same thing here? There is no such thing as a 75% chance when rolling a single D6

You are still hung up on an abstract example. I am sorry for confusing you more than you already were.

Oh wait, you're a troll with seemingly no training in statistics.

Yeah, I understand what Ph34r was saying now. Either he isn't aware that when you're dealing with relative terms, one should qualify them as such (which was my original question that was not answered) or else his understanding of math is very poor. It's one or the other, and I'm just happy that I figured out exactly what the hang-up was.

azazel the cat wrote:If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".

If you took a bit more than elementary school mathematics you would probably have no problem understanding relative increases in statistics and how they are more useful than flat values. A person reading "16.7% better than 3+" will likely not realize that the number of hits he is inflicting increases by 25%.

Example: 6 rolls of 3+ hits four times. 6 rolls of 2+ hits 5 times. 5 is 25% more than 4. 25% is the more useful statistic.

Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness.

Can we move on now?

azazel the cat wrote:Yeah, I understand what Ph34r was saying now. Either he isn't aware that when you're dealing with relative terms, one should qualify them as such (which was my original question that was not answered) or else his understanding of math is very poor. It's one or the other, and I'm just happy that I figured out exactly what the hang-up was.

Ah,

"he isn't aware that you should qualify them as such". Brilliant. It's taking your lack of understanding and turning it into my problem!

ShumaGorath wrote:Oh, look. You used a qualifier. Do you know what the difference is between saying current and not saying current? The syntax of the mathematics you are describing. In other words IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE. Please apply these terms universally and carefully, you are not using the qualifiers in a steady manner and they are exceptionally important when discussing this stuff.

^ This.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness.

Can we move on now?

I'd love to, but the anti-math crowd probably has a few more rounds of slurs to sling at me to cover up their confusion.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness

Can we move on now?

There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.

EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.

ph34r wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:If, by "uninformed" you mean "passed elementary school mathematics".

If you took a bit more than elementary school mathematics you would probably have no problem understanding relative increases in statistics and how they are more useful than flat values. A person reading "16.7% better than 3+" will likely not realize that the number of hits he is inflicting increases by 25%.

Example: 6 rolls of 3+ hits four times. 6 rolls of 2+ hits 5 times. 5 is 25% more than 4. 25% is the more useful statistic.

Please just stop. No one here thinks the mathematics are hard. It's addition. We're not five. The problem is that you're not using qualifiers in your posts and you don't seem to understand the importance syntax has in mathematical discussion. You're being abusive and abrasive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness.

Can we move on now?

I'd love to, but the anti-math crowd probably has a few more rounds of slurs to sling at me to cover up their confusion.

You've never taken a college level statistics class, have you?

azazel the cat wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness

Can we move on now?

There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.

EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.

The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness

Can we move on now?

There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.

EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.

The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.

When referring to a probability statement within a contained parameter, such as a D6, you absolutely do so as to avoid exactly the kind of confusion this has created. I admit I did not understand the the context in which Desartes had originally meant, as it was not specified.

Tapeworm711 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Tapeworm711 wrote:Going from 3+ to 2+ is in fact a 25% increase in effectiveness. Relative to its previous level of effectiveness

Can we move on now?

There. I fixed that for you. And yes, it is a very important distinction.

EDIT: That's the sort of error that sinks ships.

The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.

Yes. You do. There is more then one method of counting that increase. Hell, there are more then ten. It's an exceptionally important thing to differentiate, especially when stating the mathematics in a fashion that is both unhelpful and deceiving (as considering the increases in anything other then end results is).

ShumaGorath wrote:You've never taken a college level statistics class, have you?

I am an engineer

I can assure you that the way in which I presented relative increases is correct and commonplace. I am sorry that "an increase from 4/6 to 5/6" was confusing for you without "relative to its previous level of effectiveness"! I think we are on the same page now!

Tapeworm711 wrote:The words "Going from X to Y" IMPLIES a relative comparison. You don't need the extra statement.

Someone gets it

This conversation is 100% boring.

xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.

My agreement with this statement corresponds to a 157.93% increase in boredom

xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.

Relative to it's previous boring level, or to absolute boring

Lets just put this whole past 2 pages behind us. Repost to spark new conversation!

Has anyone found anywhere in the rules that state that Walkers are hit on their front armour in Close Combat? I cannot seem to find it.

Also I'm assuming that the unit type entry has a typo that states that walkers are MT(1), as the summary states they are MT(2).

Because if in fact they are hit on the rear that makes CC Dreads not such a great idea.



NOTE:

- MC's are only S10 against other infantry, they still are only S+2D6 against vehicles.

A submarine is 75% of the distance between the surface and the ocean floor. The captain orders a decrease in depth by 30%. Has the submarine crashed into the floor?

Answer: this is why qualifying is so important.

No the submarine is obviously flying

I am an engineer

Then you should know better.

I can assure you that the way in which I presented relative increases is correct and commonplace.

Not in any discussion or workflow that I've ever experienced. Then again, it could be totally commonplace to you. The only problem there is that we're not you or your colleagues and the way you post about the mathematics seems unprofessional and lazy.

I am sorry that "an increase from 4/6 to 5/6" was confusing for you without "relative to its previous level of effectiveness"!

It was hardly confusing. I've been arguing against your presentation of the information which has consistently been sloppy and amateurish. If you're an engineer then you should probably shape up on that, that stuff can get people killed if you're handling anything that moves.

Tapeworm711 wrote:Lets just put this whole past 2 pages behind us. Repost to spark new conversation!

Has anyone found anywhere in the rules that state that Walkers are hit on their front armour in Close Combat? I cannot seem to find it.

Also I'm assuming that the unit type entry has a typo that states that walkers are MT(1), as the summary states they are MT(2).

Because if in fact they are hit on the rear that makes CC Dreads not such a great idea.



NOTE:

- MC's are only S10 against other infantry, they still are only S+2D6 against vehicles.

I havent found it, i fail at reading though

Would suck if they no longer took it all to the front though aye.

ph34r wrote:

xttz wrote:This conversation is 100% boring.

Relative to it's previous boring level, or to absolute boring

Ah, you ninja'd me

Anyway, does anyone have an answer to my question, before it was buried in statistics?

Does a tank with the behemoth special rule lose that rule if an Entropic Strike reduces its AV to less than 14?