RE: DS2: Design questions of my own.

B Lin Wrote:

>To restate the problem, I agree that and MDC/5 is a better buy, but by
how 
>much:
>
>The original statement was that the move from	turreted MDC/4 to
turreted 
>MDC/5 caused two changes -
>
>Mass increased from 12 to 15
>
>and
>
>probability kill increased from 50% to 75%
>
>Brian's statement was that you gained a 50% increase in kill

Actually, that was originally either Oerjan's or John's statement.

with only a 25% gain in mass.

That I WILL take credit for.

>My argument is that this is deceptive since the % kill is based on 50%
and 
>the mass is based on 12 mass, you have two different baselines - so my 
>question was is the 50% kill increase comparable to the 25% mass
increase?
YES.  The fact that one is based on 50 and the other based on 12 is NOT
the 
issue.	BOTH are based on the differences between the MDC 4 and the MDC
5.

>I argued that the real gain in % kill is 25 or 25% based on a 100%
kill, 
>this is more comparable since the 25 is based on an absolute scale.

Which is inaccurate, since the absolute of 100% has no relevancy to the 
relationship between the two weapons.  Look at it this way(Forgive the 
simplistic example, but it's valid):

Suppose you're an egg farmer trying to sell eggs.  One store will pay
you 50 
cents for 12 eggs (PLEASE noone cite farm futures to show why this is an

unreasonable price!).  Another store offers you 75 cents for 15 eggs.

First of all, the 75 cents is 50% more money than 50 cents, REGARDLESS
OF 
THE FACT THAT THOSE 25 EXTRA CENTS ARE ONLY 25% OF ONE DOLLAR.	The % 
increase is a measure of the difference between the two values, NOT of
the 
difference between their difference between 1 dollar.

>The better comparison IMHO is:
>
>MDC/4	   50% chance to kill for 12 mass = 4.16% chance to kill per
mass
>MDC/5	    75% chance to kill for 15 mass = 5.0% chance to kill per
mass

If we applied your prior logic to THIS formula, you'd see that the 
difference between 4.16% chance per mass and 5.0% chance per mass is
only a 
gain of 0.84% - negligible.  But you go on to state:

>Therefore the true gain is an increase of 20.2% relative gain.

I see that this number is reached by calculating the percentage of 4.16
that 
the difference represents - exactly the formula used to calculate a
damage 
difference of 50% when you increase from 50% to 75%.

Brian B2

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com