Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N0Man" data-source="post: 4852691" data-attributes="member: 64066">Honestly, I feel the same way about the insistence on bringing up 45 degree angles.  Pure 45 degree diagonal  movements are only a small number of all the total possible movements.  Despite this fact, and despite the fact that I've said from the start that pure 45 degrees is the least mathematical accurate example possible, that's the example that everyone fixates on.The cases were brought up as examples because you asked where I came up with the idea of shorted distance from 1-2-1.I am?  Where did I argue that math was on 1-1-1's side?  In fact, where is a single person that argued this?Again, you are defending the examples I gave where 3E can have flaws by saying they require special circumstances, despite the fact that your arguments also require special circumstances (such as pure 45 degree angles being singled out exclusively, or the possibility of deciding to design rooms at a 45 degree angle which distorts distances).Also, am I understanding you correctly in that you are saying that it's ok for 1-2-1 movement to short range, but it's bad for 1-1-1 to be too liberal with range?Now, if you had said that you are bothered by the fact that when 4E is wrong, it is possible for it to be wrong for significantly more than 1-2-1, then I wouldn't disagree with that fact.  However, to say you prefer ranges to be shorted rather than to be extended because it prevents ranges from going over their rated range or speed values seems rather arbitrary.Well first of all, I don't recall that claim being made.  Secondly, "breaking the visual model" is subjective.  It would be more accurate to say that it breaks your visual (or mental) model.I agree with most of your statement.  Ease of use is the best reason to use 1-1-1.  I even conceded that the best reason to use 1-2-1 is if you felt accuracy is more important than ease of use.The only thing I have argued is that *both* systems have flaws.  They have different flavors of flaws.  One gives too many squares too often, then other shorts squares sometimes.  I've even conceded that there 1-2-1 has less mistakes than 1-1-1 does.However, to say that 1-2-1 is "almost always more accurate, and always erring on the margin within a character's listed speed" just isn't really true.  It's more accurate than 1-1-1 roughly about half the time.  If had said "more or equally accurate", that would be far closer to the truth.  Even that isn't "almost always", but at least in a clear majority.Maybe I'm failing to make my point clear.  The point I'm trying to make is that 1-2-1 is more accurate, but that the degree of greater accuracy is exaggerated or overstated.</blockquote>

Verification