RE: DS2: Design questions of my own.

The difference here is the usage of %.

The point I was making was the % chance of kill was increased by 25,
thus 25% increase.

You are using % as a factorial increase - 50% increase over the 50%
baseline.

Since there is an absolute limit to % kill, it makes more sense to use
100% kill as the baseline and count absolute, not relational increases -
so a 25% increase means 25 more percent chance to kill compared to a
100% chance to kill rather than using a fractional description.

If a weapon system was listed as being 500% better than another for only
an increase of 50% mass it would sound good.

Or would it be easier to rate if you stated that it increased the kill
percentage by 16% for a cost of 2 mass?

Does it still sound as good if you find out it has an overall 20% chance
of kill for 6 mass?

Your usage depends on what number you are using for a baseline.  As your
baseline increases in value, the apparent value of the increases goes
down (i.e. 10 points compared to 10 points is 100%, but compared to 50
is only 20%)  When rolling % dice, what is important is that it is a 10
point or 10% difference, not that it is 10% depending on the baseline.

I don't disagree that MDC/5 is a better buy, just in how much of a
better buy.

The use of mass % is faulty for the same reason, as you get to larger
and larger masses, the amount a single unit counts towards the
percentage change decreases.

You can accurately compare Kill% to mass if you assume each item you are
comparing starts with the same mass.

Your calculation below is a correct way to compare systems - a %kill
rate to a single mass unit.  In the case below you fixed the kill rate
to 75%.

--Binhan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Bilderback [mailto:bbilderback@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 3:01 PM
> To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
> Subject: RE: DS2: Design questions of my own.
> 
> 
> B Lin Wrote:
> 
> >Actually the better number is 25%
> >
> >Chance of absolute kill is increased from 50% to 75%, an 
> increase of 25%.
> 
> Actually, the % increase is based on the number it's 
> increased from  that's 
> the way you calculate increases.  75% is 25 greater than 50%. 
>  25 is 50% of 
> 50, so the increase is 50%.
> 
> >Saying that it is an increase of 50% in chance to kill is a little 
> >misleading.
> 
> I never realized that accepted standard methods of 
> calculating increases was 
> misleading....
> 
> >An obvious example would be an increased kill probability 
> from 1% to 5%, 
> >the increase is 500% by your accounting, but in game terms, 
> the increase is 
> >only 4%.
> 
> Not just by my accounting, 4 IS a 400% increase over 1 - 
> whether we're 
> talking about 1$, 1%, 1 egg, 1 Narn....
> 
> >Conversely a weapons system that already has a 75% kill rate 
> compared to 
> >one that has 100% kill rate - according to your usage, the 
> 100% weapon 
> >would ONLY have an increase of 33%.
> 
> Which is the correct usage.  Especially since we're comparing 
> killability to 
> capacity.  If the capacity of an MDC 5 is 25% greater than an 
> MDC 4 (15 is 
> 25% more than 12, 10 is 25% more than 8), we have to use the 
> same formula on 
> the kill % increase.
> 
> Let's do it this way: (I may not be up in the technical ken 
> of the rest of 
> the group, but I do remember my basic algebra)  Let's go with 
> the 50% and 
> 75% kill chances, and the 12 capacity for a turreted MDC 4.  How many 
> capacity would the MDC 5 be if it's Capacity-to-kill ratio 
> was the SAME as 
> the MDC 4?  Lets see....
> 
> 50/75=12/x
> 
> 50x=12(75)
> 
> 50x=900
> 
> x=18
> 
> So an MDC 5, to cost as much in capacity in relationship to 
> it's kill ratio 
> as the MDC 4, would need to take up 18 capacity.  But it 
> takes up only 15.
> 
> I'd call that a bargain - the best I ever had.
> 
> Brian B2
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
> 
>