Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7619058" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, this is the weighted average of the &quot;chance to kill on round X&quot;, not the weighted average of the&quot; number of rounds to kill&quot;.&nbsp; Your metric shows that a kill is most likely to occur sometime in round 2, because that's the weighted average of the chance to kill across all rounds (assuming the later rounds are essentially zero).&nbsp; You can't shift what you've measured into something new with a weighted average, so this isn't the weighted average of the &quot;number of rounds to kill.&quot;There is a different between 'chance to kill ON round X' and 'chance to kill BY round X'.&nbsp; You show the former, not the latter.&nbsp; Your average is the average chance to kill ON round X.&nbsp; My method shows chance to kill BY round X.&nbsp; Different things.This is, admittedly, a narrow point, but if you're going to lamblast me for lack of understanding, I feel it's a vital one.Again, not quite what you're showing.&nbsp; So, the argument that yours is more useful without being able to say what mine is useful for shows that your assuming instead of discussing.&nbsp; You show kill ON, I show kill BY.&nbsp; Both seem pretty useful information.Example:&nbsp; As PC1, what are the odds I will kill the monster ON round 3?&nbsp; Your method is the proper one.&nbsp; Those odds are ~10%.Also as PC1, what are the odds I will kill the monster BY round 3?&nbsp; My method answers.&nbsp; Those odds are ~94%.Different things.&nbsp; You don't show which round the monster will be killed on or by, and, honestly, neither do I.&nbsp; We both answer different questions.&nbsp; Playing the game is the only way to answer which round the monster will be killed on.a&nbsp; Don't fall into the trap of reification and assuming that your math says more than it does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7619058, member: 16814"] No, this is the weighted average of the "chance to kill on round X", not the weighted average of the" number of rounds to kill". Your metric shows that a kill is most likely to occur sometime in round 2, because that's the weighted average of the chance to kill across all rounds (assuming the later rounds are essentially zero). You can't shift what you've measured into something new with a weighted average, so this isn't the weighted average of the "number of rounds to kill." There is a different between 'chance to kill ON round X' and 'chance to kill BY round X'. You show the former, not the latter. Your average is the average chance to kill ON round X. My method shows chance to kill BY round X. Different things. This is, admittedly, a narrow point, but if you're going to lamblast me for lack of understanding, I feel it's a vital one. Again, not quite what you're showing. So, the argument that yours is more useful without being able to say what mine is useful for shows that your assuming instead of discussing. You show kill ON, I show kill BY. Both seem pretty useful information. Example: As PC1, what are the odds I will kill the monster ON round 3? Your method is the proper one. Those odds are ~10%. Also as PC1, what are the odds I will kill the monster BY round 3? My method answers. Those odds are ~94%. Different things. You don't show which round the monster will be killed on or by, and, honestly, neither do I. We both answer different questions. Playing the game is the only way to answer which round the monster will be killed on.a Don't fall into the trap of reification and assuming that your math says more than it does. [/QUOTE]

Verification