Originally posted by jdbolick
Because you and the other denizens of the CB sub-forum argue from the basis of anecdote and feeling, not sound logic or mathematics. You dismiss LR because you don't feel like it has a pronounced effect, but while your feeling may or may not be correct, it's not useful to a legitimate discussion of the merits. That's not to say that experience is irrelevant, as it often clues us in to various truths, but it can also be extremely misleading. GLB history is littered with ridiculous notions that we look back and ridicule, but which a lot if not most of the player base felt at the time. By sticking to mathematics, we can be objective instead of subjective. Of course, that goes back to depending on the VA descriptions correctly representing these mathematical equations, however, which is no sure thing.
I'm not sure that you understand the definition of superstitious or irrational. I'm basing my arguments on what we know about the mechanics of the game based upon statements by the game's creator. Crafting arguments using logical deductions taken from known facts is neither superstitious or irrational.
Originally posted by jdbolick
That's not the issue at all, but you're showing precisely what I mean about your thinking being irrational. The fact that you failed the roll is pretty much irrelevant. In theory you wouldn't need 3DS either unless your unmodified result was too low to successfully deflect the pass, so that's the same scenario. The question is how much the two VAs modify that score, and the mathematics indicate that there isn't an enormous amount of difference between the two. Given that LR would apply much more often, that would mean that it has the greater overall impact.
Originally posted by jdbolick
Given that we are discussing a VA that depends on a failed roll to trigger, I think whether there is a failed roll is incredibly relevant. LR doesn't directly modify the score at all, it simply allows that same roll to be retried if it triggers.
Originally posted by jdbolick
None of that except the RNG matters to the equations because they're all constant. The CB's jumping, vision, SDC, Swat Ball, and deflect chance AEQ all stay the same from one roll to the next, so all of that can be simplified to some hypothetical base chance for a deflection, or "deflection score" if you prefer kurieg's terminology. Neither Long Reach or 3rd Down Stopper modify only one part of that collection of factors, they modify the entire collection. Therefore the individual parts of the collection don't need to be addressed or noted separately. They can be grouped into the variable X, from which we can then apply these modifiers.
As stated above, LR doesn't directly modify that score. Whereas TDS modifies the score, giving a huge percentage bonus, LR only allows the same roll to be retried, leading to a different RNG modifier. If due the those constants and other inputs that change from play-to-play (morale, energy, positioning) the score is one that is unlikely to be successful unless a perfect or near-perfect RNG is achieved, LR helps very little. In contrast, the bonus from TDS can adjust the score to where a less beneficial RNG can still lead to a successful roll.
Originally posted by jdbolick
If you're familiar with algebra, then you'll realize that what you're describing is what the bold portion of the equation means: Chance of deflection with 15 in LR = (1 - (1 - X%) * (1 - (0.45 * X%))) I just don't think you're grasping the mathematics here sufficiently to understand that you're asking questions that don't even need to be answered because they're self-evident to anyone who understands the equation.
I've bolded the part of your equation that matters to me. You are assuming that there is some base percentage chance given by a CB's build that will allow you to derive some adjusted chance for success based upon the impact of each VA. The game simply doesn't work that way. CBs do not have a base percentage chance to get a PD, they have a PD score that is then modified by in game modifiers and rolled against the WR's catching score. Simply put, to actually create a mathematical formula that will tell us definitively which VA is better requires information that we do not have. Not only is your math based on insufficient evidence, but it is contrary to what we know about the mechanics of the game. In contrast, my argument is based upon what we know to be the mechanics of the game. It is also based on extensive experience discussing builds with some of the best agents in the game, watching some of the best CBs in the game, and building some of the best CBs in the game. It's great that you are trying to use math to improve your chances of success in the game, but in a world of very limited knowledge about the actual numbers used in the game, that math will only take you so far.
