November 22, 2024, 11:54:08 AM

Author Topic: Dice vs. Piercing  (Read 29215 times)

Aylin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2014, 10:45:40 PM »
Ok I'll chime in on this. I've been reading it in other threads enough :) Which is better dice or piercing? Both. That's like asking which is more useful a hammer or a screwdriver. Yeah you'll probably hammer more stuff but when you need a screwdriver.....

Personally I go with large dice pools in any game I play cause hey I got a nice dice bag and rolling a bunch of dice gets me drunk on imagined power.

Comparing more dice to a hammer and more pierce to a screwdriver isn't exactly an accurate comparison. Pierce does what more dice does, but not as well and only against targets with enough armour. The main benefit to it is that it's cheaper than more dice (ex: Piercing Strike vs. Power Strike).

Hedge

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2014, 11:22:15 PM »
I don't think that +x Piercing can be better than +X dice, But I believe that the difference between the two might not be as profound as the model describes. So much so that the difference is insignificant.
 
The Statistic model is correct, but for one small snafu. It does not take into account the HP of the targets or rather the lack there of. The model assumes that all damage is used at 100% efficiency. Once we think about it we know that this is not true. Piercing increases the efficiency of the dice on armored tagerts by increasing the amount of damage the target will suffer on the bottom end, but does not increase the chances of inflicting in excess of the creatures HP.


I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from  A will always  be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%.  It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.


My Gut tells me that this should affect the model in some way and the problem might even need to be approached from a different angle. Something along the lines of  The Probability for 1, 2, 3.... Strikes to kill a set list of creatures with varying stats. As I said I don't think it is possible for  piercing to be better, but then again there might be some "magical" combination of dice, piercing, armor, and HP that does.

There almost always is Overkill Damage, but could some amount Piercing mitigate it to make a lower amount of attack dice just as good as adding the same amount of attack dice?


Hedge
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 11:30:48 PM by Hedge »

MageMuse

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2014, 12:13:29 AM »
I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from  A will always  be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%.  It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.

Hedge

If the 4D +2 Piercing nets 2 piercing damage against a 2 armor 8 HP creature then it stands to reason that +2 dice added to that same roll will score damage whether there are critical or normal results.  Looks pretty efficient to me.

Hedge

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2014, 12:33:38 AM »
I will use the 4d6 +2 P(A) and 6d6(B) set against a 2 Armor 8 HP creature in explaining the hypothisis.

The first strike from  A will always  be at 100% efficiency. However, B's can be as low as 67%.  It is rare though to roll all Crits. On the second strike, if it is not killed by the first, B has a greater chance of producing significant damage that is wasted because of the low amount of HP. If we continue this out for a whole game would the difference be even quantifiable.

Hedge



If the 4D +2 Piercing nets 2 piercing damage against a 2 armor 8 HP creature then it stands to reason that +2 dice added to that same roll will score damage whether there are critical or normal results.  Looks pretty efficient to me.

Yes it will add more, sometimes more than is required. Making it a less efficient use of the damage. The Current Dice/Armor  model, to be accurate, relies on all damage being 100% Efficient. Meaning no damage is ever inflicted beyond the creature's HP. This does not happen in the real world.


Hedge

MageMuse

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2014, 02:29:44 AM »
Does your meta operate under Trivial Pursuit rules?  (I'm joking with you, not mocking)

I suppose if I had both I could use the inferior 4D +2P on weaker targets and the much more powerful 6D attack on the mage.  OR I can just be more efficient and use both on the mage, wishing I had 2 Six dice attacks instead of one.

Edit: If we are going to talk efficiency then you have to give real examples with differing opportunity costs.  If I have a choice of one and only one attack, I will choose 6D over 4D +2P every single time.  Telling me, I might do too much damage if I go +2 dice is not a winning proposition for piercing.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 02:56:48 AM by MageMuse »

Hedge

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2014, 02:47:54 AM »
Does your meta operate under Trivial Pursuit rules?  (I'm joking with you, not mocking)

I suppose if I had both I could use the inferior 4D +2P on weaker targets and the much more powerful 6D attack on the mage.  OR I can just be more efficient and use both on the mage, wishing I had 2 Six dice attacks instead of one.

You still do not understand the initial premise. That the statistical model that tells us +x Dice is better than +x Piercing is Flawed. How much so is the question.

Hedge

MageMuse

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2014, 03:03:01 AM »
I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target?  I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner. 

Hedge

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2014, 03:39:25 AM »
I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target?  I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner.



It isn't about any of that.



Hedge

MageMuse

  • New Mage
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Banana Stickers 0
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2014, 08:21:08 AM »
I understand it just fine, but if the opportunity costs are the same, then why do I care if I might do too much damage to a target?  I understand the concept of distributing attacks in an efficient manner.



It isn't about any of that.



Hedge

Look up all the creatures and conjurations that have exactly 2 armor and ones that have 8 HP and could be buffed to 2 armor.  Now check to see how many of those have exactly 8 hit points AND 2 armor then consider how often those are used.  If you're going to calculate +2 dice overkill it's also fair to calculate how often +2 piercing is wasted against resilient targets and +1 armor targets and when not enough normal damage is rolled for piercing to have an effect, especially, against high armor targets.

Aylin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2014, 09:53:33 AM »
Hedge, overkiling a creature isn't a problem. You're overlooking a lot of things, such as enchantments that can save a creature from a killing blow (Healing Charm and Bull Endurance), the overall usefulness of Piercing (useless against any Resilient, Incorporeal, or generic 0-armour creatures), and most importantly that the important thing isn't how much average damage is done but rather the probability of killing a target in a given number of attacks.

In your example, with the 8-HP/2-Armour target, the 4-die/2-pierce attack is less likely to kill to kill the target in two attacks than the 6-die/0-pierce attack. In a standard distribution, ~49.9% of the data will fall below the average. Roughly speaking, this means that the 4-die/2-pierce attack has a ~24.9% chance of rolling less than 4 damage on 4 attacks (where the mean is), but the 6-die/0-pierce attack has less than a ~24.9% chance of rolling less than 4 damage on both attacks (since the mean is above 4, one could roll below average on both attacks [say exactly 4 damage on both] and still kill the creature).

There are also other cases to consider, such as one attack rolling poorly but the other rolling above average. However, at any value of HP and 2 Armour the 6-die attack will have a greater probability of killing the creature than the 4-die/2-pierce attack does for pretty much the same reason as above. Plus the 6-die attack is more useful against things without armour as well.

Piercing does have value, but it isn't nearly as valuable as more dice. But the situations where going for more pierce rather than more dice are fairly uncommon and require that, for the same price, you would get more piercing than extra dice.

Hedge

  • Full Mage
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Banana Stickers 1
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2014, 09:14:51 PM »
I am not going to continue with this topic until such a time as I can explain myself fully.  If someone wants to defend the premise I posted Have at it or if you have question I may answer them, but I am not going to argue the point any further at this time. I have read your rebuttal Aylin and agree with what you say on its own, but It just doesn't defeat my premise, in my mind. I don't know I may just be off on some tangental thinking or some such thing. My other Gamer Friends tell me I don't look at things the same as most other people. So it may be one of those things that I can't communicate  myself.


Also I have read many of your discussions with Sike and other and you always have good and sound logic behind your conclusions. Like I said I know it is  impossible that the piercing is better, but something just keeps nagging at me that there isn't as big of a gap as the statistic model dictates.


I just wish I had someone to play against so I can get so practical experience instead of theoretical. I have only played three games since Gencon.


Hedge
« Last Edit: January 23, 2014, 09:19:44 PM by Hedge »

Aylin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2014, 10:02:49 PM »
I am not going to continue with this topic until such a time as I can explain myself fully.  If someone wants to defend the premise I posted Have at it or if you have question I may answer them, but I am not going to argue the point any further at this time. I have read your rebuttal Aylin and agree with what you say on its own, but It just doesn't defeat my premise, in my mind. I don't know I may just be off on some tangental thinking or some such thing. My other Gamer Friends tell me I don't look at things the same as most other people. So it may be one of those things that I can't communicate  myself.


Also I have read many of your discussions with Sike and other and you always have good and sound logic behind your conclusions. Like I said I know it is  impossible that the piercing is better, but something just keeps nagging at me that there isn't as big of a gap as the statistic model dictates.


I just wish I had someone to play against so I can get so practical experience instead of theoretical. I have only played three games since Gencon.


Hedge

I have also experienced times during which I was unable to express myself adequately, so I am aware of how you feel. However, I would also like to apologize for my rude behavior to you in the other thread. I should not have allowed my frustration to seep into my posts.

I'm not really sure what I could say that would help to alleviate or at least address your nagging feeling. Statistics is my least favourite subset of mathematics due to how unintuitive it is, and I'm absolutely terrible at explaining it.

Wildhorn

  • Superior artificial brain, feel free to call me Blaine.
  • Legendary Mage
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
  • Banana Stickers 3
    • View Profile
    • Mage Wars Quebec
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #27 on: January 24, 2014, 12:17:09 AM »
Quote from: Hedge
Like I said I know it is  impossible that the piercing is better, but something just keeps nagging at me that there isn't as big of a gap as the statistic model dictates.

It is just due that you are human. Humans mind tend to refuse statistic evidence.

Moonglow

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 448
  • Banana Stickers 2
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #28 on: January 24, 2014, 01:26:51 AM »
STATISTICS has been described as "the science which tells you that if you lie with your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge, on average you'll be comfortably warm"....

Aylin

  • Sr. Mage
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
  • Banana Stickers 4
    • View Profile
Re: Dice vs. Piercing
« Reply #29 on: January 24, 2014, 02:03:42 AM »
STATISTICS has been described as "the science which tells you that if you lie with your head in the oven and your feet in the fridge, on average you'll be comfortably warm"....

I know you meant it as a joke, but... *deep breath, sigh* ...really???