May 26, 2019, 06:21:21 AM

Author Topic: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?  (Read 30184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline horizon

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 3865
  • Destiny Infinity Eternity
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #135 on: January 19, 2011, 06:53:16 AM »
Hi Fracas,
what you are saying is even "worse"(?)
You say the complete core mechanic is skewed (bad). And that the complete core game mechanic shoot be changed to the Eldar msm system.

This I disagree with on a level of abstraction, realism, fun and balance and all other aspects.

While introducing an initiave system (rating), a LotR approach or the simultaneous system (Reg Steiner in Warp Rift) may be good for the game (who knows) creating only MSM fleets will kill and destroy the game outright.

Yes, BFG plays like a Naval warfare game from the 18th century or WWI.
And that is cool to me. And there are a lot of tactics involved. ;)

msm = pop up = not cool. ;)





Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #136 on: January 19, 2011, 01:08:34 PM »
1. my examples were not wrong. you must be confused. my 3 lunars shooting averaged 0.66 kills whereas the probability of each lunar shooting remain constant at  ... what was it? 0.55555? maybe with the fourth time i shoot with the lunar i get a kill. now my average kill is 0.75 per lunar shooting whereas the probability for that lunar to kill remain same. how confusing this must be?

Probability Theory tells us both what the large-sample average is, AND what the likelyhood of each discreet result is. You are telling us to throw out Probability Theory because it didn't predict that the 3 Lunars could come up with 2 kills? But it did! And it tells us how likely that is! 4 Lunars scoring 3 kills? No problem!

4 Lunars could score a possible 16 hits, and Probability theory tells us exactly how likely each scenario is. If your Lunars had scored 17 hits on just 16 dice, even then that wouldn't discredit Probability Theory, we'd just have to examine our mathematical model. (hint: there's nothing wrong with the mathematical model).


2. again you are confused if you acknowledge that outcome is either zero or one  (binomial) despite the probability varying from 0 to 100% (continuous) and some how think you are correct about how superior probability analysis is as compared to average. the same out come of "1" can arise whether the probability is 1% or 99% for any given event that has occur. as the probability remain the same, the average will change with increasing incidence to approach reality. probability is conceptual whereas averages are actual. certainly there is a relationship between probability and average. confounding is it?

You are using two different averages here. The average of the results so far obviously fluctuates depending on what the discreet outcomes were. But past outcomes are irrelevant, they don't change the likelyhood of what the next outcome will be (at least, they don't for things like tossing coins or rolling D6). You could flip a coin 10 times, and having it come up heads 10 tmes in a row, and tails would still be just as likely an outcome for the next flip as it was for the first.

When you argue: "4 Lunars can kill 3 Swords, so your average is wrong!", what you are actually saying is "My Lunars got one of many likely results, and I don't understand probability".


but you are trying the expand the application of the probability of 1 event to suggest that the probability of 100 is the same as the probability of 1 event. note probability for 100 separate events is not the same as the probability of 100 sequential events. misapplication. a game designer needs to know how things will play out over 100s, 1000s events. as a gamer you are really only interested in the next event.
when i suggested consider the two perspectives perhaps i should have been more explicit in stating the obvious, in that your perspective will dictate your reference point and what is significant. don't cling too tightly to just one perspective.

So what you are actually arguing, when it comes down to it, is that Probability Theory can't be expanded from one event to cover 1000s. It can. Already, we've demonstrated various different ways probability theory can be applied, from the outcome of 1D6, the outcome of multiple D6's as the shooting of a Lunar, Multiple Lunars, and what you'd expect from All Lunars shooting ever. Each time you say "It can't be done", we go "Yes it can, here's how you do it."

Meanwhile you're spouting drivel like "the likelyhood ("chance") of a Lunar killing an Eldar Escort is 1.16 or of killing a Sword is 0.83". You still haven't responded to my accusation that those figures are just *average hits*/*required hits*.

3. lets try the abstraction again. do try letting go of your shackles this time and do some deconstruction analysis.
ship targeting and tank targeting are neither relying on visual sighting at this time. a fair amount of it rely on counter fire target acquisition radar. thus neither should move up shoot, and hang there for a few, smoke a sig, pass it around, and wait for incoming because it certainly will come. you move, shoot, and move again so you are not where you where when incoming fire occurs. same with an infantryman. it isn't about being immune to retribution because both sides are doing it and both sides expect the others to do so.
then there is a lag time between recognizing a target and acquiring the target and then hitting the target. this effect is magnified in space because hey, distance is time, eh? over vast scale of distance with a moving target it really matters, you know?

Tank/Ships need that because they can't see over the horizon. Infantry genuinely can pop up and shoot and retreat before the other side can react (just). There is no horizon in space, a ship the size of those in BFG will still be easily discernable, even at the vast ranges battles are usually fought at. Over such distances, ships don't just *suddenly* appear, it takes hours to manouevre ships so big. The other side doesn't just hold fire and allow the eldar to breeze past like the wind - shots are going to be exchanged.

you make msm to be about pop out attack. it isn't. this is the shackle of your bias against eldar msm showing. silly.
i haven't say anything about how much a ship has to move before turning and how much of a turn they can even make in the second move. but lets say there is some limitation on the second move's minimum move before turning and how much it can turn. woah! i know i know a second concept to grasp. see? no pop-outs.

In the case where Eldar are prevented from popping down by restrictions to their 2nd move, they will be blown away because they haev tinfoil armour. That is not a fix.

In the case where the core mechanic is MSM, the game will play like dogfighters, not like battleships. I LIKE the core MS mechanic. It nicely represents kilometre-long warships ponderously coming about. If you'd rather play a different game, such as Aeronautica Imperialis, feel free.

Offline Sigoroth

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1386
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #137 on: January 19, 2011, 07:40:14 PM »
1. my examples were not wrong. you must be confused. my 3 lunars shooting averaged 0.66 kills whereas the probability of each lunar shooting remain constant at  ... what was it? 0.55555? maybe with the fourth time i shoot with the lunar i get a kill. now my average kill is 0.75 per lunar shooting whereas the probability for that lunar to kill remain same. how confusing this must be?

Oh god yes, your examples were wrong/confused.

Let me ask you something. How did you arrive at your conclusion that the lances on the Lunars would average 1 hit?

Quote
2. again you are confused if you acknowledge that outcome is either zero or one  (binomial) despite the probability varying from 0 to 100% (continuous) and some how think you are correct about how superior probability analysis is as compared to average. the same out come of "1" can arise whether the probability is 1% or 99% for any given event that has occur. as the probability remain the same, the average will change with increasing incidence to approach reality. probability is conceptual whereas averages are actual. certainly there is a relationship between probability and average. confounding is it?
but you are trying the expand the application of the probability of 1 event to suggest that the probability of 100 is the same as the probability of 1 event. note probability for 100 separate events is not the same as the probability of 100 sequential events. misapplication. a game designer needs to know how things will play out over 100s, 1000s events. as a gamer you are really only interested in the next event.
when i suggested consider the two perspectives perhaps i should have been more explicit in stating the obvious, in that your perspective will dictate your reference point and what is significant. don't cling too tightly to just one perspective.

I really don't understand how you can not get it yet. There are two ways of finding an average. If you know the probabilities beforehand you can just calculate the average. This is the simplest and best method, but requires that you already know the parameters. Since BFG is a game, we do know the parameters. Lucky us. The other way to find an average is to collect and collate data, sum the variable of interest (kills) and divide by the number of data. Once you've got this average, plus your variability, you can work out the probabilities. This is, after all, what statistical analysis is all about. Trying to make inferences about the population from the data. In this case it's absolutely worthless to us, since we already know the population information.

So while probability and average are two different things, they are intimately related. Implying that these two are completely separate entities is ludicrous. Look, the probability of a single Lunar (not crippled, no orders) destroying at least one Sword (moving away, normal range, no BM, unbraced) in a squadron of 2+ is ~56%. So this means that if you were to run the event 100 times you'd get 44 times when no Sword was destroyed and 56 times when at least one was. However, there is a chance the Lunar would destroy 2 Swords. This chance is ~3%. So 53% of the time only 1 sword is destroyed and 3% of the time 2 Swords are destroyed. So that means that in 100 runs of the event we should see 44 misses, 53 single kills and 3 double kills for a total of 59 kills out of 100. This makes the average kills 0.59. There has been some rounding of course, but if we took it up to 1000 runs of the event we'd see 444 x 0 kills, 528 x 1 kil and 28 x 2 kills giving 584 kills out of 1000, averaging to 0.584. Doing this over a larger number will refine the average further, which is what probability theory does.


Quote
3. lets try the abstraction again. do try letting go of your shackles this time and do some deconstruction analysis.
ship targeting and tank targeting are neither relying on visual sighting at this time. a fair amount of it rely on counter fire target acquisition radar. thus neither should move up shoot, and hang there for a few, smoke a sig, pass it around, and wait for incoming because it certainly will come. you move, shoot, and move again so you are not where you where when incoming fire occurs. same with an infantryman. it isn't about being immune to retribution because both sides are doing it and both sides expect the others to do so.
then there is a lag time between recognizing a target and acquiring the target and then hitting the target. this effect is magnified in space because hey, distance is time, eh? over vast scale of distance with a moving target it really matters, you know?
you make msm to be about pop out attack. it isn't. this is the shackle of your bias against eldar msm showing. silly.
i haven't say anything about how much a ship has to move before turning and how much of a turn they can even make in the second move. but lets say there is some limitation on the second move's minimum move before turning and how much it can turn. woah! i know i know a second concept to grasp. see? no pop-outs.
so i am not talking about pop out pop up pop in pop down attacks. talking about not being where you were as you do your drive by. even hoodlums understand this.
since both sides would have msm, the side that can outmaneuver, out plan, and out predict the other gets the edge. not the side with the largest gun. otherwise MS is really is just 18th century.
18th century tactics relied on 2 things, outshooting (force application) and outlasting (training/morale) with your troops. move up boys, front rank kneel second stand, alternate shooting and don't flinch when they shoot back.
no space game should adopt this abstraction if you want to talk abstraction to game mechanics.
modern tactics recognize the importance of movement/speed in addition to force application and morale/training. lets apply some of this?

zOMG!!!1!!one!! .... Mate, you just don't get it. We are NOT moving up to a point and then stopping to let the enemy shoot at us! The ships are continuously moving. It's just that the game turn is punctuated by the shooting. The movement in turn 2 carries on straight after turn 1's shooting. It is MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS the whole time. You cannot have MSM in one players turn without breaking the abstraction. You could have MSM if there was a different abstraction, such as a combined game turn. In the first movement phase all players move their ships (in appropriate order). Then in the shooting phase all players shoot, then in the second movement phase all players move. You could do that. It'd be pointless, but there'd be no problem with it.

You think you could fly 20,000+ kms into my guns, shoot me, and then fly past me without me responding? Apparently I just stood still while you did whatever the hell you wanted. You say that MS is 18th century warfare, well this is worse. It's like a phalanx being harassed by mounted archers. The fact that players take it in turns being the poor phalanx does not do anything to save this abysmal concept.

Offline fracas

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 882
    • WarMancer
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #138 on: February 20, 2011, 09:08:29 PM »
been a while as real life have gotten busy

i understand very well  that all ships are moving continuously and that the turn mechanics is arbitrary as to when the opponent gets to shoot back
whether if be after i shoot or after i move
never the less, the feel of the game is different between ms and msm
ms MS ms MS
msm MSM msm MSM
the latter has greater significance for movement

but it is what it is

Offline RCgothic

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 795
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #139 on: February 22, 2011, 10:19:10 PM »
i understand very well  that all ships are moving continuously and that the turn mechanics is arbitrary as to when the opponent gets to shoot back
whether if be after i shoot or after i move
never the less, the feel of the game is different between ms and msm
ms MS ms MS
msm MSM msm MSM
the latter has greater significance for movement
But MSM is a BAD abstraction.

You don't just fly up to a battleship with impunity and then fly away; you may move twice as fast, or turn twice as much, but you are still going to get shot before you can fly away again.

This is why MMS is so much better. You still move twice as fast as anyone else. You still get to turn twice as much as anyone else. So does this harm the image of Eldar being fast and nimble? Not in the slightest. But it does prevent the game-breaking abuse that is flying up to a fleet, obliterating a ship or two, and getting back out of range before even the automated targeters of a Necron Tombship decide to pull the trigger.

Both portray the eldar as fast and nimble. One allows game-breaking abuse, and one does not. That's why MMS is better.

Offline lastspartacus

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1279
Re: Are the Eldar movement rules broken? Whats the alternative?
« Reply #140 on: February 22, 2011, 10:56:07 PM »
+(over 9000)