Warrior General Games

First, bort's quote says "most", not all. Second, PT is exponential, as confirmed by bort (and the description itself).

Let's for the sake of this argument imagine that hypothetically, PT adds 1% break tackle chance per point and 1% higher chance of it to work. It's much more, but let's assume.

One SP spent in it would give you a 1% chance to get a 1% increase to your break tackle, meaning a 0.01% increase in average.
Another SP spent in it would increase that to 2% chance to get a 2% increase, meaning a 0.04% increase.
Spend two more SP (one more point in it) and it would increase to a 3% chance to get a 3% increase, meaning a 0.09% increase.
Two more and it would become 4% chance to get a 4% increase, meaning a 0.16% increase.
Let's cut to the chase and go to full 10 points. A 10% chance to get a 10% increase would mean a 1% increase, so from 1 point to 10 points, it is 100 times more efficient.

Exponential!

The thing is, if the natural roll was already able to break the tackle, then the additional levels of PT towards helping break the tackle aren't that useful. What IS useful is the Power Thru animation, which allows the ball-carrier to move through the tackle without slowing down or stopping (LTS), and without drastically changing vector (spin). PT also remains active for a short period, so the animation allows the bonus to apply to consecutive tackle attempts.

Most powerbacks are rocking pretty high natural break tackle scores, so the bonus to breaking the tackle may not always be needed, but it is certainly nice to have (just in case you wouldn't break the tackle without it), especially for the animation's effect.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
First, bort's quote says "most", not all. Second, PT is exponential, as confirmed by bort (and the description itself).

Let's for the sake of this argument imagine that hypothetically, PT adds 1% break tackle chance per point and 1% higher chance of it to work. It's much more, but let's assume.

One SP spent in it would give you a 1% chance to get a 1% increase to your break tackle, meaning a 0.01% increase in average.
Another SP spent in it would increase that to 2% chance to get a 2% increase, meaning a 0.04% increase.
Spend two more SP (one more point in it) and it would increase to a 3% chance to get a 3% increase, meaning a 0.09% increase.
Two more and it would become 4% chance to get a 4% increase, meaning a 0.16% increase.
Let's cut to the chase and go to full 10 points. A 10% chance to get a 10% increase would mean a 1% increase, so from 1 point to 10 points, it is 100 times more efficient.

Exponential!

That isn't how exponential works at all. Exponential is purely a math concept where the variable is part of the exponent. In the case of Power Thru, I can guarantee it is not exponential.. and I'd go as far to say there probably isn't a single SA that is dealt with by an exponential variable. And if we're going off what Bort has already stated, it seems pretty fair to say this.

Sigh... Homage, you don't really have any idea what an exponential progression is, do you? Or how common they are. Or what a graph of those is. And by bort's own words, not all SAs are linear, some are exponential. Also by bort's own words, this is one.

If you want to prove that this is not an exponential, I'll just leave wikipedia and some random googling here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characterizations_of_the_exponential_function
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth <- this one alone should prove you wrong, but just in case...

http://hotmath.com/images/gt/lessons/genericalg1/exponential_graph.gif
http://www.sosmath.com/algebra/logs/log4/log42/gl01.gif

If you want to divide growth patterns, there's mostly 3 big ones:

Exponential, as shown above
Linear http://library.thinkquest.org/19387/Pics/Walkthrough1.gif
Logarithmic http://aaron-sherwood.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/log_graph.jpg

The above definition of power through I used for ease of your understanding can be defined as 1,01 ^ (1,01 X) which is clearly exponential.

Show me where Bort has stated Power Thru is exponential. Please.

And I don't need a quick study lesson on functions. This isn't Algebra 2. Thanks though.
I'm well aware of them and for the most part use them every day in my line of work.

Regardless, this is the stupidest fucking argument ever... All I stated was carrying > strength on all HB's because of the importance of that attribute across the entire skill tree available to a HB and you're turning this into some discussion on PT.

PT works, PT is great and it's something all pHB's should invest in. Regardless of its function.

Originally posted by Homage


PT works, PT is great and it's something all pHB's should invest in. Regardless of its function.

my level 36 powerback with 4 in PT agrees

whatever the math is to make it fire, it works fine. who gives a fuck how it works? All that is needed to be said is that it should be mandatory for all powerbacks.

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
my level 36 powerback with 4 in PT agrees

whatever the math is to make it fire, it works fine. who gives a fuck how it works? All that is needed to be said is that it should be mandatory for all powerbacks.

If u have 4 in PT at level 36 than ur building wrong

Originally posted by whodey08
If u have 4 in PT at level 36 than ur building wrong

AEQ and CE...


i know i know, was hard to come to that conclusion, right?

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
AEQ and CE...


i know i know, was hard to come to that conclusion, right?

Lol

Originally posted by Homage
Regardless, this is the stupidest fucking argument ever... All I stated was carrying > strength on all HB's because of the importance of that attribute across the entire skill tree available to a HB and you're turning this into some discussion on PT.

PT works, PT is great and it's something all pHB's should invest in. Regardless of its function.

I agree it is the stupidest argument ever. All I asked in the start was for you to explain why you thought carrying was more important than strength. Had you done that instead of trying to come off as a boasting idiot, you'd have prevented this argument from happening.

Morale of the story? I'll let you figure it out yourself.

Originally posted by Hagalaz
I agree it is the stupidest argument ever. All I asked in the start was for you to explain why you thought carrying was more important than strength. Had you done that instead of trying to come off as a boasting idiot, you'd have prevented this argument from happening.

Morale of the story? I'll let you figure it out yourself.

I did this in my initial post about carrying and then you went on some diatribe about how it wasn't possible for a pHB to invest in both power and elusive skills.

It wasn't about power and elusive, it's more about 7 different SAs spread over two trees. Right there, is a lot of SP investment. And yes, I thought one would lose too much by striving to achieve that. A simpler way to prove it would be to use numbers and/or a build, which didn't exactly happen anytime soon.

And your initial post about carrying didn't explain anything, or I would not have asked, or do you think I enjoy the crap I have to put up with in these forums?

Originally posted by Homage
because carrying plays a much larger roll in all things HB skills

We're talking spin, fakes, not fumbling, brk tkl, etc etc.

this is where I explained the value of the carrying attribute...

Originally posted by Homage
Exponential? LOL

I'm glad you're reaching here but for the sake of argument... (since I don't have a power HB):

http://goallineblitz.com/game/player.pl?player_id=2468926

this is where I explained that it was plausible

And I acknowledged the plausibility, and moved on to prove that it is indeed exponential. What's wrong with that?

And that "explanation" on the value of carrying... Does not explain jack shit...