Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rooster]

Ok, so I was just struck with an idea. (not being good at math myself)

Let's say the player has a chance to attack a monster and has two options:

To use a special attack that will take 3 turns and say have a chance to cause a status effect (for example 33%)
Or
to attack 3 times and cause a status effect (say 11% happening)

My question is:

Does rolling 3 times for wanted result causes it to have a bigger chance of happening at least once, than rolling once, but having a 3 times bigger chance of happening?

On a 6 sided dice, rolling 3 times and counting on a 6, seems less likely than rolling once, and counting on a 4,5, or 6

What are the actual numbers for this kind of thing?

[GlyphGryph]

The 10% 3 times is arguably better than 3 turns and then 30% and arguably worse, assuming you can use extra turns after a success to do other things. Although there are values for which this changes, especially depending on how risk averse you are.

Take your d6 example
There's obviously a 50% chance for the second option on the effective "roll 3"

For the other option, the combinatorics gets a bit more complicated.

First roll, 6 options. 1/6, 17% chance
Second roll, 6 options (36 combinations of which 6 are already successful from turn 1, and of which 5 more are now ALSO successfull) 11/36, 30% chance by round 2
Third roll, 6 options (216 combinations, of which 66 are already successful, and of which 25 more will be successful) 102/216, 42% chance by round 3

So you've got a slightly reduced chance of overall success, but a greatly increased chance of getting success on an earlier roll.

For the original example...

Lets say it's 3/10 and 1/10 to make it a bit easier.
Option a:
Round 1: 0%
Round 2: 0%
Round 3: 30%

Option b:
Round 1: 10% (10 combinations, 1 success)
Round 2: 19% (100 combinations, 10 success from round 1, 9 more from Round 2)
Round 3: 27% (1000 combinations, 190 from round 1 and 2, 81 from round 3)

This is, of course, ignoring any potential benefits from inflicting the effect multiple times, in which case multiple attacks is hands down the winner.

And assuming I remember my combinatorics correctlys.

[Darvi]

Hmm.

1-(1-x)^3 as opposed to x/3... yeah I think a lower chance which can be repeated is better.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

Wouldnt you first have to determine if the status effect is more advantageous than the three attacks themselves?

[Darvi]

I think he has 3 attacks either way, and maybe a status effect.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

I read it as one attack over 3 "rounds" for a 33% chance status effect vs. 3 attacks (one in each round) over 3 rounds with each brings an 11% chacne of a status effect.  My question is, do three attacks themselves give more effect than a single status effect?  IS the status effect the end goal or simple an additional possbility?  I think you would have to modify this to determine what the effect of a single attack alone would be against what target.

Ex.  I have an attack that does 1-8 dam, target has 16 HP.  Considering that each attack could do upwards of 50% health of my target, I would rather have the attacks over the status effect.

Ex2.  I have an attack that does 1-8 dam, target has 200 HP.  I would be shooting for status effect percentage because my attacks themselves have become meaningless.

Ex3.  None of the OP or my examples also takes into considersation successfully attacking/hitting in the first place to get the status effect.


note:  I may be missing the point here, which is to create an algorithm.  If so,  bleh, sorry.

[Rooster]

What I'm specifically referring to and wanting to determine the efectiveness, is aiming in the game 'caves of qud'

aiming got an upgrade in that you don't have to aim to use the skills, but using it anyway alows you to triple the chance (the % chance is not given away)

How it works, is that you shot, and you get a chance of a skill, such as cripple firing up.
But if you aim 3 turns(in essence pass the turns doing nothing) the chance triples

It struck me as kind of odd, since I can attack 3 times and deal more damage, but I wondered if in addition to doing damage, the difference in % of applying a skill to a shot was worth it. I don't think it is.
Because a slightly higher chance to inflict cripple wasn't worth the extra damage I can make

[Neonivek]

There is another factor... If something happens and you need to do something else, aim won't really let you as you lose aim.

[Gorjo MacGrymm]

...How it works, is that you shot, and you get a chance of a skill, such as cripple firing up.
But if you aim 3 turns(in essence pass the turns doing nothing) the chance triples...

I see.  Basicly, if your three attacks normally are more effective then the "cripple firing up", then, no, its not worth it.  If your single attack and one "cripple firing up" does more damage then three normal attacks, then go for it.  Does it apply to any attack (i am envisioning ranged attacks since your aiming)?  Maybe is you had like 1 "+5 super destructo arrow" and a whole bunch of reagular ones, then i can see going for the big upgrade on the chance for "cripple firing up" would be worth it with the big arrow.

Because a slightly higher chance to inflict cripple wasn't worth the extra damage I can make

  yeah, thats what had me wondering.  It might change at differenct levels as mob HP and weapon damage changes, or against specific mobs.

[GlyphGryph]

If your single attack and one "cripple firing up" does more damage then three normal attacks, then go for it.

Even then, its often better to do the single attacks, since you have a chance of crippling sooner, a chance of killing it sooner (possible), and the ability to change plans if things aren't working out, etc etc.

The only time aiming would work is, I imagine, in a situation where things don't really "start" until the first shot is fired, in which case you'd want to start with it every time if possible.

[Rooster]

Nah. The game is pretty melee centric. While I can kill stuff in ranged with OK effectiveness, a ridiculous skill such as cripple (that makes the moving speed smaller) will work against one enemy at a time well. And it's a roguelike, so hordes of enemies are a given.
So yeah I can kinda determine now that the bigger chance isn't even worth the opportunity to run when needing to.

[ed boy]

This is a situation for conditional expectation. I'm going to need to know more to be able to tell you the best thing to do. To be specific, I'm going to need to know:
-How long the effect lasts for
-What the effect does
-Is there a miss chance for attacks? Is it static or dynamic?

[Rooster]

-it lasts 2D4
-It slows the movement speed somewhat
-Definitely. The chance of the bullet or arrow flying through the square that you fire at is based on agility, and then the player actually needs to hit the monster(again modified by agility).

[Max White]

Well, I don't see why we don't make a computer program with all this, have it run over about ten thousand times, and then give you the average of each outcome you want to test. That will give you very exact figures without debate.

[ed boy]

-it lasts 2D4
-It slows the movement speed somewhat
-Definitely. The chance of the bullet or arrow flying through the square that you fire at is based on agility, and then the player actually needs to hit the monster(again modified by agility).

A few more things that need to be known:
-If the effect is active, and an attack hits that activates again, what happens to the time? Is the new time added, or does the new time replace the old one?
-Is the miss chance the same for both attacks?
-How are you planning to use this ability? My best guess is that you plan to attack them from a range, doing damage. It seems likely that they cannot deal damage until they get close enough to you, and you want to dispatch them with as little damage done to you as possible. Is this correct?
-If the above is correct, can you move backwards while attacking?
-How does the damage (without the special effect) compare for the two attacks?