Search results

  1. T

    Why I am giving up on Scales of War

    My group is finishing up the heroic tier now (just two sessions left, by my estimation) and I'm pondering this very question. Do I want to stop and start over with WotBS, which looks awesome and a lot deeper, or do I want to stick with it? It's taken us about 14 months to get through the heroic...
  2. T

    Why did you subscribe?

    I just subscribed, and it was because of WotBS and other premium content. Mostly WotBS. I don't have time to build my own modules, so good adventures, particularly adventure paths, are key for me. On the other hand, I'm already a DDI subscriber, and running Scales of War, so community support...
  3. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Quick question about Ragnarok's 5th level Daily, Rain of Steel. It looks like the Iron Armbands don't apply to this power because it isn't a melee attack (it's 'Personal'). Any disagreement with this ruling? For the AI on this power, I was thinking of marking all Stance powers as :do_not_use...
  4. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    About the AI Okay, about the AI, and why it's so stupid. Short version: Computers are stupid. :D (Slightly longer version: ...and I'm not an AI programmer.) Cheekiness aside, the big challenge here is creating an AI that doesn't have to be rewritten for every character and every level...
  5. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    I was looking ahead at upcoming magic items when I realized that some of them don't come from the first year. I want to limit the selection for this first pass so we're evaluating the pre-Expertise math. Anybody care to suggest some replacements? There may be other magic items that don't fit as...
  6. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Ragnarok Level 4 Ragnarok's level 4 build is ready. The sim now has proper support for the idea of a "damage roll bonus"--before, it would add the bonus whenever any set of dice were rolled, which didn't mesh so well with crits. I've also put in the new +3 / +0 / +2 / +0 / +1 mix of challenge...
  7. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    I like the idea of smoothing out the discontinuities. Done. I used your suggestion of level+3, level+0, level+2, level+0, and level+1 opponents for now, but that's easy to change if we want. Here are the level-by-level results: Level 1 Ragnarok vs. Soldier: 45.0% +/- 3.1% survival (5.8 rounds)...
  8. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Oops, you're right. I wasn't adding in the +1/2 level bonus to constitution. This is a good example of why the char sheets and example combats need review, even with all the tests I have in the sim. I actually did have a test covering the soldier's HP progression, and that test passes--but I...
  9. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Ragnarok Level 3 Level 3 was easy to do, since it didn't introduce any major new concepts that I had to add to the sim. I did add a tweak to the AI that managed to turn off Second Wind (and Boundless Endurance, which won't fire until Second Wind has been used). Oops. That's why I put the combat...
  10. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Yeah, the one-on-one aspect of the sim makes the raw survivability numbers suspect. UngeheuerLich makes a good point about the battlerager's stickiness, too, which means that we can't really compare survivability between builds, either. (As an extreme example, a wizard would probably have lousy...
  11. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Ragnarok Level 2 Yep, I'm still around. I've finished programming in Ragnarok's level 2 abilities. Here's the survivability scores: Ragnarok at level 1 (vs. level 1 soldier): 91.7% +/- 1.7% Ragnarok with level 2 stats but no new abilities (vs. level 2 soldier): 94.7% +/- 1.4% Adding the...
  12. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Ragnarok Level 1 Ragnarok's level 1 build is done. Since my last post, I've added support for magic weapons, multiple at-wills, and arbitrary conditions. The magic item (a Vicious Warhammer +1) bumped survivability up to 95% (from 90%), but then Brash Strike actually dropped survivability back...
  13. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    True. For this first pass, I'm just going to use the DMG p.184 guidelines to make a level-equivalent soldier. That is, after all, the math everyone's complaining about. Once the first pass is done, we can decide how to make the sim more realistic, whether that's a full five-PC party, real...
  14. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Introducing Ragnarok The basic build for Ragnarok is done. This isn't the full level 1 build, but rather the same base level that the other dwarves got. (The second at-will power and the magic item are missing.) This allows us to do an apples-to-apples comparison between Ragnarok and the other...
  15. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Quick update on the sim: Temporary hit points are in, as is Battlerager Vigor and a Crushing Surge-specific version of Invigorating. Next up: generalized support for Invigorating (for Knee Breaker) and support for combat advantage (for Brash Strike and Distracting Spate). After that, I'll put in...
  16. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Well, if the math is properly balanced, any power should be as good as another (assuming appropriate tactics). Since we're looking at how a single build scales over 30 levels, rather than comparing different builds, I think it's it's okay to choose a build that's based around the type of combat...
  17. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Thanks for the build. It needs to be tweaked, though, so that it doesn't have any movement-related abilities (or items). There's a benefit to those that won't be modeled by our sim, which means survivability will be reported as lower than it should be. We also need a level 3 item for the level...
  18. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Let's do it. The original purpose of this sim was to provide some insight into the balance of the 4e math. Specifically, I'm interested in whether the obvious disparity between monsters AC/to-hit and PCs' AC/to-hit at high levels makes as much difference as people think it does, and whether the...
  19. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    Sure--here's the results vs. a level 1 soldier. This is a 10,000 run sim, so it's more accurate than the previous results. Greatweapon w/ Toughness instead of DWT: 80.6% +/- 0.8% Guardian w/ DWT instead of Toughness: 81.2% +/- 0.8% For comparison, the original builds' results: Greatweapon w/...
  20. T

    Monte Carlo versus "The Math"

    I've changed the builds to use the first array Mengu suggested (except where otherwise stated) and I ran the Expertise, Plate Armor, and Durable sims. I've also improved the fidelity of the model a lot, as you can see if you look at the character sheets. This shouldn't change the results, but it...
Top