<OFFTOPIC mostly...and BORING, even for me>
dojoteef said:
ichpokhudezh said:
I just told you I will reply in kind
First, what's this, an elementary school? You are not going to read, think and argue, just "reply in kind"? Then the whole skit is nothing but self-aggrandizing.
Pardon me, but I've needed to edit the flow to make it more coherent (oof mark).
Instead in your initial post you had comments such as: "Are you being dense on purpose?" without any provocation.
...
<oof>Anyone that thinks FPS games are as complicated, or even more so than RPGs, is just beyond any comprehension.</oof>
This was a meaningful remark which expressed my opinion on your means, not an insult.
If you are insulted by this, avoid using this approach in the future.
Please re-read my remark on "US Tennis Open" (did you discard it for being a joke?). (I'll try to limit myself to shorter quotes, since the distribution of the 'chance' of you reading them deems my efforts useless)
Think about it.
Let me spell this out for you:
Anyone who says that an involved physical activity could be mastered by
recognizing three or four general rules is either hopelessly dumb or pretends to be so. The former you aren't, hence to the latter you belong. Questions?
ichpokhudezh said:
That'd be the median in your case, fyi
Maybe
this might help you. Goes into the definition of the statistical median and how for a normal distribution, this is in fact the mean, i.e average.
<oof>That's why I'm trying to be less technical.</oof>
That's fucking laughable. Chew on this:
your plain-jane median. This short one glosses over the details and has no enchanting sigma signs either, but gives out the fact in plain english that for skewed distributions median is not nesessarily equal to the mean. (and yeah, normal is not skewed %), in case you didn't figure it out, and the opposite of 'skewed' would be 'symmentrical'). And game distros are going to be skewed, aren't they?
Now, since you were so coy although brisk and indiscreet but didn't provide anything that contradicts my conclusion let me pause and do some 'graph' analysis here.
You were angry at me because (in the order of 'probability'
1. you didn't know what were you talking about and I figured it first
2. you think it's so obvious that anybody who doesn't get it deserves to be sent the most roundabout way (remember those quadratic means? Can you say "tangent remark"?)
3. you wanted to conceal you 'very special' formula
4. you were running a long riddle and I've guessed it right before the punchline.
What the fuck is going on here, oh kind bearer of the mathematic degree?
ichpokhudezh said:
BTW, Your use of "statistical" when you refer to something given just fucking drives me nuts, as you've noticed already.
Explain. I don't see what you are refering to.
Since we're on referencing spree, here's mine:
Read on
a. differences between
statistics and
probability theory. Especially note differences in methods and initial assumptions.
b. definition of
probability distribution
Now, a question.
Which one are you referring to when you mention "distribution [function]"?
Since there was no data for you to build your distribution on, and there's no way you can "choose" statistics openly (happens in RL, I know) your suggestion of "choosing a better statistical distribution" is funny at best.
You've made a lot of progress by referring to "probability density function", tho.
I guess I could be more clear, but I find the fewer the terms I bandy about, the easier it might be for people understand the discussion, though I guess that only works up until a certain degree.
I totally agree and you should do both...
I think you are not understanding my point. The underlying system might be complicated, but the final output for the player would be simple. If you remember what I stated at the beginning of the discussion, I wish to keep as much of the underlying complexity as possible, while making the numbers easier to read and understand.
And you choose to not understand neither mine nor
VD's (as far as I can understand his words). Mechanics can be comlex while underlying rules can be simple enough. What you propose is wrong since it presents values that do not allow easy operations with them and the baseline of your system is at the prohibitive level of required comprehension.
Note though, that the output is no more easy than the output of the original system and much less 'predictable' without special means.
Compare:
Monster: AC 15, Weapon A: 2d6, thac0 0, Weapon B: 1d10 thac0 5. Baselines are obvious, the distribution is known beforehand and common (yah, the uniform one). Will take some number crunching but very possible even without your TI-83, wouldn't you agree?
Monster 78%, PC Strength 33%, PC Dex 88%, Weapon A: damage 7 44%, Weapon B: damage 5.5 55% (success and stat rankings are bogus). Which is better? I feel my insides cringe even for uniform distibution, even worse with normals. And where's the baseline? It looks even less approachable with skewed distros (I imagine that would require multiplying def distro by damage-dealing distros by 'extra-hit-ability' distros but that's a shot in the sky, really, and I cannot imagine doing this on a piece of paper).
Once again read up on
statistical causality before speaking.
I was going 'WTF?' but then I saw 'paths', 'graphs', 'inference' and said 'Aha!'
You don't happend to be one of them
Bayesians? Bah, small matter. Just don't go preaching that numbers are subjective, that blows off my top.
Correlations aren't very useful.
This comes from the same person who references the method of analysis of systems of correlating values? Did you actually read those articles yourself? Are you familiar with what those methods do (which is, it doesn't find the 'cause' (as in A->B) exactly, but figures out a common factor dependency, so _methods_ changing parameter A would with great likelyhood change parameter B)?
For example, ...[icecream-crime example follows]...
Before you go on with your crusade, apply some analysis to that controversial statement (ice->crime). If you feed your system only with samples that confirm that correlation, your favorite Bayesian theorem would 'confirm' that your belief is fucking true. Moral: confirm what you state to be obvious with a sanity check.
I would suggest you go and read my friend's joke again. It appears you don't get it. At all. A pity, really, 'cause it's so applicable.
ichpokhudezh said:
If you have a distribution (not a single value) than it would mean that person 1 would sometimes be able to carry as much or even more than person 2 from your example.
You need to explain this point better as well. I would love to see how you arrive at such a conclusion. Let's look at IQ; it is considered to have a standard distribution centered at an IQ of 100. So if one person has an IQ of 100 and the other has an IQ of 120, which person would be more capable of solving logic problems? The person with an IQ of 120, correct? Same goes with strength, so please explain your position a little bit better, because it doesn't seem to make sense.
Ref spree again:
probability,
IQ
First, your complete statement is a burp out of your ass (as in "not true") which is a direct consequence from your misunderstanding of the term "IQ" and it's applicability.
Second, let's look at your example even on the valid domain (same age group): IQs (whatever their validity may be) do not
guarantee that a
particular 'problem' would be solved by a person with lower IQ and not by the other one.
average target, ie. 50%.
....
This all has to do with the distribution
...
Can you understand it now?
You baffle me with your persistence. Do you understand what are you talking about? Your 'distribution', henceforth the average, depends on the sample.
A person with an IQ of 120 instead is smarter than roughly 91% of the population.
Stupid notions like this bite off behinds of adventurers into wild Amazonia. Mostly since they misuse their terminology ('smarter' in this case).
Neat. I put those to facilitate re-reading of certain passages. It doesn't seem to work, sadly. That's for plebs, isn't it?
ichpokhudezh said:
How's your reading?
Notice the word "average"? Notice "meaningful" as contrasted with VD's "too abstract"?
If you notice I explain that the average is meaningful in a
context of the distrubtion function. If you can't see beyond the word average when it comes up, then this debate is pointless.
It seems your keyboard skills are so good your words don't even register in your own brain.
If you think that I should burn a candle next to your avatar every time you use
distribution your hopes are
greatly exaggerated.
Read the passage again (that lengthy quoted one). There's no "context<...>" when you present those numbers to an unsuspecting customer.
Vault Dweller said:
I dislike VTM rules as too simplistic. The output, I agree, should be simple, the mechanics shouldn't.
[EDIT: somehow a quote slipped: dojoteef was saying 'me too' kind of thing
There's a recognizable difference between rules, their application (mechanics), and result. If you need me to, I can send you some links with reading material on that. Look at the 'emergent behavior' systems favorite example - termites - simple rules, complex mechanics, simple outcome. Here's a good
link with amusing picture in it.
Though it seems the only real way to demonstrate such a system for diehard skeptics without complicated math here would be to actually code up a system such as this
(which I intend to do; it's the reason I started the discussion about this in the first place, to get feedback).
That's right, bimbo: to
demonstrate something you've got to
present something. No jerking off around the bush.
No need to code too - get the fucking formulas out.
<my example on "no reverse dependence", smartly 'retorted' by not reading it, not understanding it and then rehashing my own words and referencing the holy theorem/>
Bayesian sucks, what's new? Your misapplication of it blows twice.
The dependencies are only complex underneath, though they would seem simple at the surface level
...
but it's not something the player actively has to worry about
I doubt this. Want a cookie?
Cute.
...
Now you see how I can be civil. If you would return the favor that would be great. If instead you still wish to get into a flame war, we can do that as well.
No way! Score!!! So you're ok with them hot games either
But let's finish with your bullshit shchienze first.