|
| Thread: 1st strike |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
posted May 21, 2003 07:51 PM |
|
|
OK, OK. You don't have anything more to do than flaming in this topic? OK, let me be a noob. I'm sure everyone of you would beat me easily in MP. But I don't think it is a good theme to discuss on several pages. My theory, howewer, too.
No, I don't play with calculator and I DON'T call my calculations a Main Heroes Theory. I don't want to teach you how to play better, it's only a small theoretical research. Probably useless in game. Only... You could say what is approx. damage difference in this theoretical battle, 1, 10 or 50%?
____________
|
|
Draco
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 21, 2003 08:17 PM |
|
|
i admit i didnt fully understand the language in what you had said initially but, i do now due to clarification in other posts, i thank you for your topic and i appreciate it
____________
|
|
Odvin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted May 21, 2003 09:15 PM |
|
|
People, let's have peace here...
I see that there are some people on HC who don't really understand what others want to say. I don't want to flame these people, because I don't want to flame anybody at all, especially multiplayer veterans like AndiCalculatorSlayer and Intuitionrelyingschaaf. The only thing which I'd like to say...
You guys are probably very good in multiplayer. Can't really tell because I never played you, but I'm quite sure you are good in multiplayer Heroes. The point is that Heroes is a game that consists of dozens of different aspects. HoM&M include not only multiplayer, but also some things like single scenarios, campaigns, tutorial ( ) and even some other stuff that I won't list here. If calculations like those provided by IRh, Wub or myself are not suitable in multiplayer games, it's still no reason for calling them n00bish or whatever. Does it cover Heroes? Yes, definetely. So why can't they be posted out at HC? If you think that HC is solely for multiplayer discussion, or for strategy only discussion, then I think you're wrong. Only the fact that you cannot use them in your games, or find them useless at all, doesn't make them unsuitable or not interesting for others. You know, there are players who are deeply involved into mathematical or theoretical, not just strategical aspects of Heroes. Respect them too, cause you're not the only HC members.
I hope you will understand my point... And stop this discussion here. (I mean the flaming started by some, not IRh's posts of course!)
____________
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2003 01:22 AM |
|
|
Maybe I should tell why I find this thread very interesting.
I have joined a small, newly founded game company ()which is designing a multiplayer online game (somewhat similar to heroes). Since we are still in the conceptphase we have no playable demo yet. Therefore, the only way to balance out the game at the moment is by using math. So actually threads like these are nothing less than special literature, which helps me to do my job better. Hence my interest.
Of course I agree that you certainly don't need maths to play heroes. But as you will understand now, I just need a mathematical explanation for what we already know by playing the game.
@IRh: I already understood that your formulas where only suited for melee units without no retaliation (your intial post was clear enough for me already). I was just trying to use the conclusion of your formulas in a broader sense. Because the statement: first strike is more important for units that do many damage in comparison to their hitpoints is also true of course when you take more battlerounds in account or when you are fighting shooters instead of meleeers.
I also agree that according as the enemy stacks are larger, your calculations are more correct. And obviously defending is not a good idea indeed, when facing no- retaliation creatures. So in other words, I think we never really disagreed  .
Another interesting phenomenon that you can show with similar math: using defend against first strike works better with high level creatures than with low level creatures. Oh and if you found more of these kind of formulas, I like to hear them (I can take some flaming  ).
Words of wisdom btw Odvin
____________
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted May 22, 2003 10:42 AM |
|
Edited By: IRh on 22 May 2003
|
Thanks Odvin.
Quote:
I have joined a small, newly founded game company
Interesting.
Quote:
Because the statement: first strike is more important for units that do many damage in comparison to their hitpoints is also true of course when you take more battlerounds in account or when you are fighting shooters instead of meleeers.
mmm... I wondered about melee retaliating units, for this case was less obvious... But I posted shooters/no-retal units formulae, too...
Quote:
And obviously defending is not a good idea indeed, when facing no-retaliation creatures. So in other words, I think we never really disagreed .
... and they showed defending is bad for almost ALL cases (large armies, ofcos), for the 1st strike adv. is higher here.
Summary:
- melee retaliating: small adv of 1st strike
- non-retaliating os shooters: big adv of 1st strike
Quote:
Another interesting phenomenon that you can show with similar math: using defend against first strike works better with high level creatures than with low level creatures.
Sorry... Are you serious? [EDITED]
P.S. Special case: 2 Angels vs 2 Angels
- 400 400
1) (attack)1st stack does 100 Dmg to 2nd
2) (retal) 2nd stack does 100 Dmg to 2nd
3) (attack)2nd stack does 100 Dmg to 2nd, killing 1A!
4) (retal) 1st angel does only 50 Dmg
- 200 250
5) (attack)1st angel does only 50 Dmg, killing 1A...
6) (retal) 2nd angel does 50 Dmg to 2nd
7) (attack)2nd angel does 50 Dmg to 2nd
8) (retal) 1st angel does 50 Dmg
- 100 150
9) (attack)1st angel does 50 Dmg
A) (retal) 2nd angel does 50 Dmg to 2nd
B) (attack)2nd angel does 50 Dmg to 2nd and WINS!
2nd won.
Conclusion: 1st strike SUXX, Waiting rules! LL
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted May 22, 2003 05:38 PM |
|
|
Defending tactic
Let us consider two equal stacks, from which one is constantly defending. Let a = (DmgReduced/HP), b = (Dmg/HP). So:
Attack damage = aH
Retal damage = (1 - a)bH
For Angels: 20 * 20% = 4 defence points: -8%
a = 0.23, b = 0.25
Attack damage = 0.23H
Retal damage = 0.19H
Defence tactic: -16% Dmg
1st Strike tactic: +6% Dmg
Defence looses
For Azures (max damage): 50 * 20% = 10 defence points: -20%
a = 0.064, b = 0.08
Attack damage = 0.064H
Retal damage = 0.075H
Defence tactics: +14% Dmg!
1st Strike tactic: +0.5% Dmg
Reminder: we consider HUGE stacks (for Azures at least Legion :-O)
Hope all is correct...
-------------------------------
Some stupid formulae below, only for proof that they exist.
A - 1st stack HP, a = (Dmg/HP)
B - 2nd stack HP, b = (Dmg/HP)
With retaliations:
1st damage = 2aA - 2abB + 2aabA
2nd damage = 2bB - 2abA
Without retaliations:
1st damage = aA
2nd damage = bB - abA
____________
|
|
lord_crusader
Promising
Supreme Hero
UHU!! supreme!
|
|
posted May 22, 2003 06:44 PM |
|
|
hehehe MATH RULES !! all this guys that consider the calculator or the math are totally useless to play heroes are wrong, obviusly you won't use your calculator in the middle of a battle, but Think!!, all the computers games was made with math, all programns in the computers use math, but well is true that the tactics is more useful than the math , but please don't tell me that the math are useless because I gonna think you are a classic guy who hate the maths because in the school this was his worst nightmares, Now you can see the answer to that question when you was at the school in the math class: I don't need the math in my life, for what can I need the math???
well I can say you, you can use the math to make better decisions in your battles in heroes 3
____________
Dig Out Your Soul
|
|
Wub
Responsible
Famous Hero
|
posted May 28, 2003 01:50 AM |
|
|
Interesting stuff again IRh . Some reactions:
I agree with most you said, including that waiting can be better than striking first. Also the formulas you gave me are interesting (certainly not stupid ). I tested your formula with a fight of 48 vs 48 angels and the results fit exactly. The good thing is also that you can now make the calculations for stacks with different hitpoints and defense/attack ratios. I think that if I would need it, I could use these formulas to predict the number of combat rounds for a fight. Or make formulas for more than one round. And as expected, the formulas that you gave are compatible with that 2a^3 in your first post. So thank you for your explanation .
It surprises me that you don't find it obvious that using defend against first strike works better with high level creatures than with low level creatures. Maybe you understood me incorrectly, because in your post thereafter you proved that defend is much more useful for azure dragons than for angels. Since lower level creatures usually have a lower defense skill than higher level creatures, lower level creatures gain less defense points when they defend. Therefore defend is less effective for them.
I also found some errors in your last post. When defense is higher than attack, every defense point decreases damage by 2.5%, not 2% (it is an error in the manual I believe). So in your example, DmgReduced/HP or a is (0,9*50)/200=0,225. Attack damage would be 0.225*H and retal damage would be 0.19375*H, so defend is still a bad idea. I found that the defense tactic lets you do 13,9% less damage in this case. Strangely, I also found an other value for the first strike tactic in case of angels: 8,33% more damage after first round.
Finally I asked myself the following. Assuming a fight with equal numbers and equal creatures (melee and retaliation), when is defend better than first strike? I concluded that the answer must be a function of the height of the defense skill and the Defense/Attack ratio of the creatures.
____________
|
|
Kuma
Promising
Supreme Hero
u can type so much text in her
|
|
posted May 28, 2003 02:50 PM |
|
|
HC-math club; no flamers allowed :)
Interesting so far. I keep reading it. A new approach to H3.
Have to agree that for actual gameplay other things are far more important, but this is a part that -to my knowledge- has never discussed so much.
____________
People used to call me crazy, but now that I'm rich I am excentric.
|
|
EmperorSly
Known Hero
Destroyer of Liver
|
|
posted May 29, 2003 09:45 AM |
|
|
math vs intuition
in fact, intuition is your brain doing complex math on its own without letting you know of anything except the final result of the calculation.
the advantage of math against intuition is that you are in control of the calculations that are done, whereas with intuition brain can put in mistakes without you being aware of them.
the disadvantage of math is that it is damn hard to understand conciously, especially if you skipped the classes at school a lot.
____________
|
|
GrunanCross
Famous Hero
King of the Underdark
|
|
posted May 29, 2003 10:00 AM |
|
|
lol yeah like me and spelling lol damn that weed
____________
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
|
posted May 29, 2003 02:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that if I would need it, I could use these formulas to predict the number of combat rounds for a fight. Or make formulas for more than one round.
Second for first... I don't know yet.
Quote:
It surprises me that you don't find it obvious that using defend against first strike works better with high level creatures than with low level creatures. Maybe you understood me incorrectly, because in your post thereafter you proved that defend is much more useful for azure dragons than for angels.
No, I found it too obvious to concider, the fact that defending is better for tough units. But the question is for which creature defence tactics advantage is better THAN of 1st strike, and what are the concrete digits. I posted twice for I needed time to calculate, I did it in the train.
Quote:
When defense is higher than attack, every defense point decreases damage by 2.5%, not 2% (it is an error in the manual I believe).
REALLY?! 8{ 8O 8( I thought it was 2%!
<< If the Attack skill is lower, then damage is reduced by 2% per point of difference (to a minimum of 30%). >> - manual.
*testing* Really, 2 Angels do 75 Dmg to AA.
Quote:
Strangely, I also found an other value for the first strike tactic in case of angels: 8,33% more damage after first round.
1st damage is (2a - 2a2 + 2a3)H
2nd damage is (2a - 2a2)H
1st does additional 2a3H, comparing to Dmg2.
Percent rate is: a3/(a - a2)
Percent rate for angels(a = 0.25): Really 8.33% !
My error: When counting a3/(a - a2) I supposed (a - a2) ~ a, for a2 is less than a. So, the percent rate is ~a2, what is 6,25%
You're right Wub
Quote:
Finally I asked myself the following. Assuming a fight with equal numbers and equal creatures (melee and retaliation), when is defend better than first strike?
This question waits for me to take a train next time .
____________
|
| |
|
|
