Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7619010" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, but you didn't show this.&nbsp; You shows something that wasn't about overkill damage and then claimed that since this not-overkill thing exists, asking about overkill (focusing on overkill?) is a fallacy.&nbsp; That's not how that works.Your thing can be true AND overkill can still be an issue worth investigating.&nbsp; Your effort, while interesting in a technical sense, don't illuminate overkill at all.&nbsp; And, all your method really does it look at the difference between a flat probability curve and a less flat probability curve.&nbsp; You say above in one of your examples that your method is more useful than mine because it contains more information (I assume you mean the weighted average) but I challenge that proposition.&nbsp; You're excluding information, namely the chance that a kill event occurred earlier, to focus on a specific round's chances.&nbsp; This isn't more useful unless I'm betting on whether or not I kill something on round 3.&nbsp; If you're betting on whether or not you kill something before round 3, my method contains more information.But this really isn't an who has more information thing -- I don't care outside of pointing out the math.&nbsp; I find your quantification interesting enough to have explored it more fully.&nbsp; However, in the end, if you're interested in who's more likely to kill first, there are other methods that are less cumbersome that provide that information.As for overkill, you addressed my suggestion above and said it fails for multiattacking characters.&nbsp; It does not.&nbsp; Switch &quot;rounds to kill&quot; to &quot;attacks to kill&quot; then divide the result by number of attacks per round to determine &quot;rounds to kill&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7619010, member: 16814"] Okay, but you didn't show this. You shows something that wasn't about overkill damage and then claimed that since this not-overkill thing exists, asking about overkill (focusing on overkill?) is a fallacy. That's not how that works. Your thing can be true AND overkill can still be an issue worth investigating. Your effort, while interesting in a technical sense, don't illuminate overkill at all. And, all your method really does it look at the difference between a flat probability curve and a less flat probability curve. You say above in one of your examples that your method is more useful than mine because it contains more information (I assume you mean the weighted average) but I challenge that proposition. You're excluding information, namely the chance that a kill event occurred earlier, to focus on a specific round's chances. This isn't more useful unless I'm betting on whether or not I kill something on round 3. If you're betting on whether or not you kill something before round 3, my method contains more information. But this really isn't an who has more information thing -- I don't care outside of pointing out the math. I find your quantification interesting enough to have explored it more fully. However, in the end, if you're interested in who's more likely to kill first, there are other methods that are less cumbersome that provide that information. As for overkill, you addressed my suggestion above and said it fails for multiattacking characters. It does not. Switch "rounds to kill" to "attacks to kill" then divide the result by number of attacks per round to determine "rounds to kill". [/QUOTE]

Verification