Brocktree

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S And also don't forget the common sense test. Jeff was not likely to say, "hey, for Quick Action, I'm going to use a set of two linear equations with decimal coefficients." He's unlikely to use a decimal coefficient. And I never said he used two linear equations. I'm using those equations to pick any trends. I would conclude that: 1. From QA 1-9, each points increases the chance to double strike by approx. 3-4%. 2. From 9+, each point increases the chance to hit by approx. 1-2%. This would fit with the 10-cap hypothesis, *except* that the cap only occurs once at the first 10 points. 3. There is some base %to double strike once you invest in QA (probably 3-4%). This is why the first point gives a whopping 6% to hit. 4. It's not wise to invest in over 9 points in quick action. 9 QA gives 35%, wheres 20 QA only gives 46% (an additional 11% chance to double strike). What a waste of skill points.

A linear association of "y = 3.5x + 3.4" fits the data almost perfectly from Quick action values 1 to 9. This means that each QA point would add 3.5% chance to hit up until a quick action of 10. A linear association of "y = 1.2x + 21.3" fits very well for QA values 15 to 40, meaning 1.2% to hit per point. There is a definite plateau between values 10 and 15 until the new association kicks in. Could it be possible that adding points in Quick Action between these values doesn't actually provide a benefit?

Oh wow, awesome results Thoukydides. I admire your dedication. I graphed your results in Excel (Quick Action value on X axis and % chance to double strike on Y axis), and it's obvious that *something* changes when you have 10 points of quick action. You get a roughly linear association up until 10, a plateau between 10 and 15, and then a new linear association with a smaller gradient. Funnily enough, I noticed this association for magical efficiency in Avernum 5, although I'll admit that my sample sizes ranged from 30 to 50.

I checked prior to Farrar going to the back of his keep, and the soldiers are set as hostile *beforehand*. I think one of the soldiers from the back of the keep might have their path displaced when Farrar gets in their way when he retires. They venture into the sight of a friendly soldier, and a fight ensues. If you're unlucky enough to get in their line of vision, they shout the alarm. The way I dealt with it was to stay out of sight while healing the friendly soldiers, until the wandering hostile guard was killed.

I've decided to have another go at completing A6 (my previous run through was interrupted by... life), and I've stumbled on something annoying that also happened in my last playthrough. The first time I meet Lord Farrar, I'm as diplomatic as possible. He then retreats to the back of his keep. Hostile soldiers from the back of his keep then attack the friendly soldiers in his throne room. Usually they then spread out into the main area of town, sight me, and raise the alarm. Then the entire town turns hostile. Is this a bug? I'm running v1.0 on the PC, so I guess it could be. But the v1.1 patch makes no mention of correcting this.

Originally Posted By: HOUSE of S This is what is referred to by "10-cap." It does not fit QA results perfectly, but it fits them better than other options and has been used very widely in Jeff's games. "10-cap" is not a perfect name for this but "diminishing returns" isn't great either since that name actually describes every single skill with a rising skill cost and flat additive effect. 10-cap does appear to be the 'best' explanation at this time, but it is far from perfect. However, I think it is obvious that a sky high investment in quick action does not give you the benefit it ought to. Quote: Second, some empircal questions: did you attack the exact same entity each time? No, I used minor summons. Do you think your chance to have a double strike differs depending on the creature type? I find that hard to believe, but it is one possible explanation for the huge and erratic variation. Quote: How did you deal with misses? I didn't count outright misses, as I would assume that one would have had the same probability to double strike with those attacks if they had connected. If I missed on the double strike, I still counted the attack as a double strike. Quote: Lots and lots of tests. Yeah, I was hoping you wouldn't say that. Quote: To prove the point about testing numbers, I posted some QA tests for A6 a long time ago. They were similarly sized (30 successful attacks each) and I got results of 37% for 10 QA and 60% for 20 QA. These results are striking since they are not close to yours at all and they are both higher. That suggests that either (1) something else affects QA efficacy as well, (2) QA results include a large random factor, or both. I think Explanation 2 is more likely. Perhaps each point does not give a flat % value to double strike, but a value randomly selected from between a range of values (eg. between 1-5%) Quote: One possibility: in Exile, Jeff used lookup tables rather than formulas for most skills. Weapon skills, for example, would go up by 10-20% for the first few points, then 5% for a bit, then slowly decrease down to tiny percentage increases as you neared 20. While there are many skills where we KNOW he has given up lookup tables, I guess it is possible they were preserved for something like QA. Personally I find that hard to believe, but it's possible. In consideration of the data, I don't find it that hard to believe.

A second trial of QA 10 gave a 48% chance to double strike. Good lord. I'm not sure if I can pick a trend here. All I can conclude is that it's not worth investing over 5 points in quick action, as any benefit after this point is minimal.

I was reading through the effects of some skills in Avernum 6 that Slarty had posted. For quick action, he had deduced the following: QUICK ACTION (Cost:1 -- No Trainers) +4% chance of double strike on all melee/pole attacks (10-cap) The three most common explanations for the way skills work is either: 1. A flat, constant bonus for each point added. For example, adding 1 to melee always gives you +5% to hit, and +1 die damage. 2. Capped. No further bonus is obtained after investing more than the capped skill level. 3. Diminishing returns. For example, each point invested up to 10 grants you a +5% bonus to double strike. After 10, each *two* points grants you a +5% to double strike. I decided to perform my own little test. I invested 5, 10, 15 and 20 points of quick action in the same character, and attacked an enemy 37 times on each skill level. Here were my results [Edited in: QA 1 = Hit 6% of the time (6% per skill point)] QA 5 = Hit 30% of the time (6% per skill point) [Edited in: QA 9 = Hit 30% of the time (3.5% per skill point)] QA 10 = Hit 22% of the time (2.2% per skill point) QA 15 = Hit 38% of the time (2.5% per skill point) QA 20 = Hit 44% of the time (2.2% per skill point) Note the precipitous drop in your chance to double strike when you invest 10 skill points. My testing does not gel with any of the above three explanations. 1. A flat, constant bonus for each point added. For example, adding 1 to melee always gives you +5% to hit, and +1 die damage - Clearly there is a decline in the benefits you receive from quick action after investing somewhere between 6 and 10 points. 2. Capped. No further bonus is obtained after investing more than the capped skill level - Quick action is clearly *not* capped, as a 20 point investment grants you a greater chance to double strike than a 5, 10, and 15 point investment. 3. Diminishing returns. For example, each point invested up to 10 grants you a +5% bonus to double strike. After 10, each *two* points grants you a +5% to double strike. This is where it gets interesting. Clearly quick action gives diminishing returns. However, the traditional explanation doesn't fly. Even if you received diminishing returns after investing 5 point, you should *still* have a greater chance to double strike at 10 points than at 5 points. For example, let's assume quick action grants you 5% to hit for every point invested up to 5, and then every second point invested up to 10. 10 points in quick action invested should give you: (5%*5) + (2.5% * 5) = 37.5% Now, I would usually brush off the drop at 10 points as a statistical aberration. Perhaps a sample size of 37 isn't enough , and I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat the test 100 times. However, there's one problem. I've noticed the exact same phenomenon in the past for magical efficiency and lethal blow! 5 points gives you a better cumulative benefit than 10 points, but 20 points grants you a better cumulative benefit than 10 points. What am I trying to say? I'll put it simply: Up until somewhere between 6 and 10 (let's call this point X) points of quick action, each point you have invested grants you roughly a 5% chance to double strike. However, once you hit X points of quick action, the benefit for each point you have invested drops to 2.5%. The benefit you receive from each point has effectively *reset* to a lower value upon reaching the X point threshold. I know that my hypothesis is a bit 'out there', but it's the only one which really fits with my observations. The next question is: How would I confirm or refute this hypothesis?

Note that you don't need to kill Epiron-Bok, just smack him around enough so that you knock of a chunk of crystal.

Originally Posted By: "Vempele" I disagree: you can get to Inner Gazaki-Uss at a fairly low level, and the Invincible Wingbolts make it easy to get the canister. But by the time you have obtained 3 points of gazer, you've virtually finished the game. Quote: By the way, the Gazer's (and Eyebeast's) melee attack stuns a lot more than the Glaahk (ab_effect_per_level = 6 vs 1, ab_status_effect_per_level = 3 vs 1), so a mix of Shock Tralls and Gazers may be optimal for stunlocking. Sounds good in theory. In practice, you'll never stunlock anything you need to stunlock. Personally, I'd be tempted to haul along one gazer, if only to have a creation that can be a decoy for magical attacks. Unbound and Kyshakks brutalise war tralls.

But you can't create and sustain any meaningful changes in a child, if you don't first change adults. Given that adults have agency over their behaviour, I only think that it is reasonable that *they* change, before expecting children to do likewise.

Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet Children are less apt in taking responsibility since we don't teach it to them, and when as a result they become worse at taking responsibility, we give them even less. It's sort of a vicious cycle. Perhaps. I actually feel that it went the other way. Children have been denied the opportunities to 'grow up', and therefore remain stunted emotionally and socially stunted. Children have done nothing to deserve having their opportunities withdrawn, it is merely a reflection of a weak and fearful society that has on obsession with covering their precious children in bubble wrap. Quote: Society is its people. If a society is sick, it's because the people are sick. Any fault you can assign to society, is ultimately fault of (some of) its people. Precisely. Children have relatively little agency over their own actions, and are a product of their own upbringing. Every behaviour and attitude they display is adopted from *adults* (first hand, or second hand). Ergo. Children are the most honest reflection of society. If children are rude, lazy, and have poor discipline, then it stands to reason that this is because adults are rude, lazy, and have poor discipline. As a person who works in a customer service job, I will say this. All of the traits adults whine about being present in kids (a disrespect for authority, lack of discipline, impatience, rudeness, think they are the centre of the universe) are also present in the adult population. This includes the middle-aged and elderly stratas of society, who grew up with corporal punishment. Some of these people are just pure pricks. I would have thought that all the beatings they received at the hands of the nuns would have made them nice and placid. "Yes Mother superior!". I also have juniors at work who shoulder more responsibility than I had at their age, and whom demonstrate themselves to be both reliable and respectful of authority. Again, provide children with opportunities and express your confidence in them, and they will achieve. I'm convinced that there is no problem with children. There *is* a problem with adults, however. Quote: Yes, there are situations where the environment around you makes it impossible for you to fix things; real cases where things really aren't your fault, and you can do little to change them yourself. But when that attitude becomes the default towards any obstacle, when people start thinking that it's always someone or something else instead of them that has to change, there's a problem. I agree with you regarding adults. However, children lack the same agency over their own actions. *Adults* need to change and improve their own behaviour, before they can demand likewise of their children. Otherwise it is the old 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

Frozen Feet, you mentioned that children are given far less responsibility than they were in previous generations, and I whole-heartedly agree. You explain this observation as the children not being able to handle that additional responsibility. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with the children today. They are simply victims of an inherently sick society. When you provide children with challenges, additional responsibility, and express your confidence in their abilities, then they will achieve. Unfortunately, society babies kids to such a degree that they never get an opportunity to test their will and strength of character.

Originally Posted By: Lilith video games aren't really worth getting all macho about Heretic! Calling them video *games* is derogatory. I'm of the opinion that they should be referred to as interactive video art.

These days it is easier to cheat, and easier to obtain walkthroughs. Furthermore, games have really been dumbed down in the last 5 years. Regenerating health, cover systems, quest compasses, hand holding, linear gameplay... When I was a kid, gaming was for the ultra-nerds who had passion, who were persistent enough to gain the skill to beat some hard as hell games. Now gaming is just some sort of casual thing any idiot can do. As ironic as it may sound, we're breeding a generation of wimpy nerds.

Originally Posted By: Vodka and Quicklime This is my hobby horse to ride! In single player games, the point is to have fun. You should play however is most fun to you. Someone else has more fun doing it a different way? Good for them, and keep doing what you like. If you like playing on Torment, with a singleton, without using magic, have fun enjoying your challenge. If you like bringing down unfathomable wrath upon your foes and just seeing the plot, use the editor for all its worth. There's no wrong way. In particular, given how Jeff put in cheats himself, it's not subverting the intended function of the program. It's just augmenting the cheating he provided. —Alorael, who doesn't see the inherent value in working. He especially doesn't see the value in working for what you don't want, such as a challenging game when what you enjoy is a steamroll. Alorael, I agree with your sentiment to a degree. However, I'm worried that today's generation of gamers are going to miss out on that priceless feeling you get when you defeat a hard as hell game without resorting to cheating.

Originally Posted By: Handyman Maybe they really wanted it. Maybe they're too cowardly to admit their own desires for abuse. And to think--all they needed was some courage. Well, buck up, kids! It's interesting you that you should mention that. I've noticed that some (not all) individuals who are abused by their partners will leave one abusive spouse, and end up with another.

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim You'd be surprised how well it works. The advice demonstrates a complete ignorance of human (or more accurately, *animal*) nature. Furthermore, just from personal experience, I can tell you that being nice to your bullies merely reinforces their contempt for you.

Jewels, your advice is so far removed from reality, that it should be a sin to give it to your own children. Providing nice things to those harassing you simply reinforces the perception that you are weak, and provides your bullies with an incentive to continue with their bullying behavior.

Originally Posted By: Work-related hydrargyria Brocktree, let's get past the semantics and cut to the heart of our differences. Are you arguing that there is no meaningful difference between schoolyard bullying and interactions in the workplace, between citizens and police, or between citizens and the government? No, I am not arguing that. I have already explained my position, several times in fact, and it is on record for everyone to see. I suggest you go back and re-read it, because I'm not going to continue restating it. Originally Posted By: "Slarty" However, I think the simple qualifications we have here is that word 'most'. Most of the people in this discussion disagree with your definition of bullying It's not my problem if people refuse to use and understand the English language as defined by society as a whole. A professional dictionary is a more reliable indicator of how society defines words, than several individuals on a web forum.

No matter how you define 'bullying', it is a sad fact of life that people will attempt to force their will on you via coercion. Bullying provides children with the opportunity to prepare for such experiences, in a controlled environment.

Originally Posted By: Lilith So all I have to do to be acknowledged as an authority on the English language is write a dictionary? I'm asking what qualifications you have which give you the authority to determine how 'most people' define a word, and why your perception is inherently more valuable than that of a mainstream dictionary. After all, dictionaries are compiled by individuals who are qualified in studying the use of the English language in modern society. Quote: Dictionaries aren't authorities, they're attempts to describe how words are used in society, which attempts may or may not be successful. Attempts by *qualified individuals*. When a student wishes to clarify a term in an essay, they will cite a dictionary, rather than making the unsupported claim that 'most people believe X is defined as Y'. Quote: In any case, you're not effectively communicating with anyone else here, because none of us accept your proposed definition of "bullying", Quite the contrary. I am communicating quite effectively. This is evidenced by the fact that people are arguing against me. A failure to communicate would result in a lack of understanding, not disagreement. After all, one can hardly disagree with a point of view that they cannot comprehend, can they now? Your disagreement with me is not due to my failure to communicate, but is instead fueled by your arrogant dismissal of a legitimate source of information. And this brings us back to my first question (which you have yet to address). By what right do you proclaim yourself to know more about what *most people* believe in regards to the definition of words than the people who study such topics for a living?

Originally Posted By: Lilith they attempt to do so, but may or may not succeed. actual usage is still the gold standard for what a word means. if most people wouldn't recognise something as bullying under their understanding of the word, then describing it as bullying is not effective communication unless you are trying to be dishonest You just acknowledged that dictionaries are an authority on how words are defined by society. Yet when I adopt the dictionary definition of 'bullying', I am not engaging in effective communication. Pray tell, do you claim to speak for 'most people'? If so, what authority do you have to do so?

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Brocktree Why should I let the supposed opinion of 'most people' influence me? 'Most people' are dim-witted morons whose mastery of the English language leaves much to be desired. 'Most people' have far less authority than a mainstream dictionary, which is *the* reference for definitions of English words. sorry bro, the English language existed before dictionaries did; dictionaries attempt to follow usage, they don't define it So dictionaries define words as they are used in society? Um, gee, thanks. By attempting to contradict me, you just completely deflated Slarty's argument, and vindicated my stance.

Originally Posted By: "House of S" Quite simply, typical police activities _could_ be described with the word "bullying", but that isn't what most people mean when they use the word. Why should I let the supposed opinion of 'most people' influence me? 'Most people' are dim-witted morons whose mastery of the English language leaves much to be desired. 'Most people' have far less authority than a mainstream dictionary, which is *the* reference for definitions of English words. As the dictionary definition of 'bullying' makes no mention of the legitimate/illegitimate use of force, any talk of such is, quite frankly, a waste of my time. I refuse to get enticed into a point-counterpoint debate on the legitimacy of government when it has no relevance to the topic at hand. Originally Posted By: 'Lilith' brocktree's argument seems to be that a bully beating you up and taking your lunch money contributes to the common good because anyone who lets it happen to them deserves it Nope. The notorious bullies are trash and cowards, who only prey on the weak. However, think on this. What does one call an individual who is intimidated and cowed by a coward?