Originally posted by Longhornfan1024
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.
No, you're basing your argument on what you and the other denizens of the CB sub-forum "feel" about Long Reach, not anything factual, logical, or mathematical. Meanwhile you have shown that you don't understand the equations posted earlier. Look, nobody expects you to be an expert on every subject, but if you show that you clearly don't understand what the equations mean then you definitely shouldn't be stating that they're incomplete or inaccurate.
Originally posted by
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.
You believe that because you're not thinking on a complex enough level, so you don't understand the concepts being discussed. The idea that LR only becomes relevant after you fail a roll is no more or less important than the idea that 3DS only becomes relevant if your initial roll wasn't good enough to cause a deflection. It's the same rationale, but you want to apply it to one and not the other because your argument is fundamentally irrational. The value of the re-roll is already calculated in the posted equation, and honestly it's pretty simple for anyone who has taken a course in probability.
Originally posted by
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.
All of this is already accounted for in the posted equations. If you don't believe me, then listen to tautology who also told you that your dissent was not legitimate. This is simply a matter of you not understanding the concepts being discussed, but instead of recognizing that limitation and yielding the discussion to people who do grasp the concepts, you're insisting on having your say anyway. It's like a guy with access to WebMD barging in on a medical conference.
Originally posted by
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.
The same is true for 3rd Down Stopper, dude. 3DS doesn't add 45% to your original chance, it multiplies that chance by 1.45. So increasing a snowball's chance in hell by 45% is just barely better than a snowball's chance in hell. All of this was already covered in tautology's posted scale. The mathematics are there for you, you just don't understand them.
Originally posted by
Not only is your math based on insufficient evidence, but it is contrary to what we know about the mechanics of the game.
You're wrong. I've said it, and tautology has said it. How many people do you need to say that you aren't making a legitimate argument before you'll realize it and back off? The equations are accurate based on the VA descriptions. The only thing that changes based on the operation of the sim is what X signifies, but what LR and 3DS modify and how they operate are both already known.
Originally posted by
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.
First, your status of "building some of the best CBs in the game" is self-promotional bluster, and highly debatable. You're getting as bad as Warlock is with FBs. Yes Man II was a very nice build, but I worked with better ones on Providence (and built a better one myself if you consider EL to mean something).
Regardless, you're proving exactly the point I made at the beginning. Your argument isn't based on facts or mathematics, it's based on the collective feeling of the CB sub-forum. That anecdotal experience isn't worthless by any means, but it's definitely sketchy. Again, if you go back and read the things posted 8 seasons ago about SAs, VAs, etc then you'll see declarations of "fact" that we now consider to be ridiculous. The reason I addressed this issue mathematically is because it's objective. But as I have said repeatedly, the validity of such a comparison depends on the VAs working as described, and we do know from experience that such a caveat is not always true. But if it is true, then Long Reach is better than 3rd Down Stopper. If you're absolutely sure that isn't the case, then you should be arguing that the VAs don't work as they're written.
Originally posted by
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.
The part you continuously fail to get is that we have the information we need to compare those two VAs. Granted, we are very limited in what else we can mathematically express about the sim due to incomplete knowledge, but we have descriptions for those VAs and it's fairly easy for someone with a probability background to model and compare those two effects.
Originally posted by kurieg
It matters enough that either 3DS or Long Reach is always better than the other - depending on the estimate of the "competing scores" mechanic.
Well, 3DS is always going to be superior to LR on 3rd or 4th downs, while LR is always going to be superior to 3DS on 1st or 2nd downs. The question is how the superiority of the former situation compares to the latter situation, and thus what conclusions might be drawn about overall value.
Edit:
In the CB sub-forum's irrational hatred for Long Reach, I think too many people are continuing to miss the fact that it's when you combine Long Reach & 3rd Down Stopper that you really get a substantial effect. So if you're going to have one, then you really ought to get the other (unless you don't plan on 3rd downs, obviously).
