Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4849927" data-attributes="member: 64066">I remember when this was being discussed over on Gleemax before 4E was released.&nbsp; If a person supported 1:1, it was inevitable that they'd receive some snark from some elitist who seemed to jump to the conclusion that if you didn't prefer 1-2-1, then you were bad at math (or at least inferior to those that supported it).&nbsp; I even saw posts stating that they were afraid that simplifying the game in ways like this might lead to an increase in players of the types that were undesirable.&nbsp; People like that baffle me.As it's been said over and over again, if it's something that bothers a given group, they can house rule it.&nbsp; I have trouble with the &quot;it's so simplified, it makes it harder for me&quot; argument though.&nbsp; Honestly, it's usually easy to eyeball whether the X or Y length is greater, and if that's within your range, there's no need to even count squares.&nbsp; When moving, I usually just look at my max in either the X or Y, and then just pick a spot along that row or rank that doesn't go past the line of what a pure diagonal would.Now, I can understand how a pure 45 degree angle might look a little off in some situations, but that's a specific angle where 1:1 is off by the largest amount.&nbsp; However, at some angles, 1:1 is about the same accuracy or even greater accuracy than 1-2-1, something that 1:1 critics downplay, if they acknowledge it at all.&nbsp; If you bring this up, it's usually argued that though both can have a margin of error in them, the margin of error for 1:1 is greater than that of 1-2-1, and it's true, for the true corner cases... no pun intended.Examples, with a typical speed of 6 (Real math, vs 3e, vs 4e, to the closest integer)<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 1y = 6.08.&nbsp; 3E = 6.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp;&nbsp; Tie.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 2y = 6.32.&nbsp; 3E = 7.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp;&nbsp; 4E wins (by 1)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 3y = 6.71.&nbsp; 3E = 7.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp; 3E wins (by 1).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 4y = 7.21.&nbsp; 3E = 8.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp; Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 5y = 7.81.&nbsp; 3E = 8.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp; 3E wins (4E off by 2).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">6x + 5y = 8.49.&nbsp; 3E = 9.&nbsp; 4E = 6.&nbsp; 3E wins (3E is off by 1, 4E off by 2).</li>
</ul>3E's 1-2-1 math is not the landslide of realism that some of the 1:1 critics seem to argue.&nbsp; I think whole debate is largely psychological and is weighted by how highly some people value realistic and consistent math (even if it only wins by a small lead).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N0Man, post: 4849927, member: 64066"] I remember when this was being discussed over on Gleemax before 4E was released. If a person supported 1:1, it was inevitable that they'd receive some snark from some elitist who seemed to jump to the conclusion that if you didn't prefer 1-2-1, then you were bad at math (or at least inferior to those that supported it). I even saw posts stating that they were afraid that simplifying the game in ways like this might lead to an increase in players of the types that were undesirable. People like that baffle me. As it's been said over and over again, if it's something that bothers a given group, they can house rule it. I have trouble with the "it's so simplified, it makes it harder for me" argument though. Honestly, it's usually easy to eyeball whether the X or Y length is greater, and if that's within your range, there's no need to even count squares. When moving, I usually just look at my max in either the X or Y, and then just pick a spot along that row or rank that doesn't go past the line of what a pure diagonal would. Now, I can understand how a pure 45 degree angle might look a little off in some situations, but that's a specific angle where 1:1 is off by the largest amount. However, at some angles, 1:1 is about the same accuracy or even greater accuracy than 1-2-1, something that 1:1 critics downplay, if they acknowledge it at all. If you bring this up, it's usually argued that though both can have a margin of error in them, the margin of error for 1:1 is greater than that of 1-2-1, and it's true, for the true corner cases... no pun intended. Examples, with a typical speed of 6 (Real math, vs 3e, vs 4e, to the closest integer) [LIST] [*]6x + 1y = 6.08. 3E = 6. 4E = 6. Tie. [*]6x + 2y = 6.32. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 4E wins (by 1) [*]6x + 3y = 6.71. 3E = 7. 4E = 6. 3E wins (by 1). [*]6x + 4y = 7.21. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. Tie. (Both are 1 off of the closest integer). [*]6x + 5y = 7.81. 3E = 8. 4E = 6. 3E wins (4E off by 2). [*]6x + 5y = 8.49. 3E = 9. 4E = 6. 3E wins (3E is off by 1, 4E off by 2). [/LIST] 3E's 1-2-1 math is not the landslide of realism that some of the 1:1 critics seem to argue. I think whole debate is largely psychological and is weighted by how highly some people value realistic and consistent math (even if it only wins by a small lead). [/QUOTE]

Verification