2016-05-28, 11:11 | Link #17721 | |
Meister
Join Date: Jul 2010
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 11:30 | Link #17722 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Far East
|
Quote:
Second, equip your boss support fleet's CVs with 3 dive bombers and 1 fighters at the smallest slot. Third, with the aerial combat mechanism in mind, you should strive for AS+ at every node up to and including the boss. I'm pretty sure what you have there isn't going to cut it. Fourth, CAV with WG42 and type 3 shell will perform better than CA with type 3 shell only. If you have extra WG42, equip it on CAV and replace Haguro. Fifth, Ooi isn't going to help you in E6, nor is Yuudachi without WG42. If you have T89 tank or the Kami craft, field DDs who can equip them. Otherwise, equip high-firepower DDs with WG42. You need to understand that the fundamental goal here is to maximise the opening airstrike damage, which hinges on the number of bombers that survive to said stage. You should do everything you can to maximise the number of bombers in your main fleet without losing AS+ at any node.
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 11:54 | Link #17723 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
Definition of "False sense of security" means it will give you sense that everything will be fine, but there is a danger of failure regardless. In this context, you think Yamato sisters and support fleet will help you to avoid being knocked to red previous to boss node or deal more damage, but there is a danger of that fail. There "false sense of security". And then now you are up in arm over how "Oh, no you don't acknowledge the increase in odd that Yamato sisters will help you". What? Are you inventing out imaginary opponent to debate with you or something? My point is simple. The reducing of resource consumption is numerical. The chance that using Yamato sisters will increase your E-7 chance is not. I recommend pick the former, because like you , I don't have the odd for later. Stop being sensational with the whole a lvl1 ship can also clear E-7. It's only valid argument if a) a lvl 1 ship reduce fuel consumption, which it does not, and b) there is a near majority of people use lvl 1 fleet to clear E-7, which there aren't. Because if there is, I sure as heck people will try to run lvl 1 ship to clear E-7 too Wait, was it a new thing? i thought you need to do it repetitive and constantly for it to be ban-able offense?
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 12:12 | Link #17724 | |||||
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 37
|
Quote:
That's also the whole concept of equipment modding: it won't give you a notable edge because of the way damage calculation is done in KC. But at least, increasing your odds in a general fashion will have an impact. And if you are that obsessed with "stats", then observe what kind of frontliner succeed and those who don't: the vast majority who can clear events of that caliber use every single options in their arsenal to increase their success rate. Hell, players like Academus are applying such doctrine in a delayed fashion to maximize their chances of success. Half assed way doesn't work under the pretense of "more runs = the better". Quote:
That's why I likened that subject with drop rate: on poistatistics, there were a lot of instances where droprates were higher in 丙 than in 甲 except the context was bad since most were farming in the former, not the latter. Stats by itself doesn't mean much when a trend may not even come close to reality, which can be calculated with actual data, not sampling. Quote:
If you still consider that having better chances in surviving and dealing damage is not numerical, then multiplying runs due to resources saving isn't numerical either, because saving more material doesn't mean anything if you can't clear it. Because both statements are on even footings: You have more chances at dealing with E7 with a sturdier fleet, while you have potentially more attempts on the boss with more resources by saving them. Both points use the exact same principle, except one rely on success rate while the other rely on number of instances. One cannot be "more numerical than the other", it is nonsense in maths. Quote:
2) It is in line with my point: no one (or rather, not the vast majority) do that because, while the chance is there, it is extremely beyond unlikely. However, there are instances where the LBA did the work alone (and if you think I have the burden of proof, those 2 instances are enough: you could have the very same result with just an entire fleet of lvl1. Hell that exemple is quite telling too.). Again, I used exaggerated examples (but still feasible) to illustrate my point: using all the means to reduce costs and still clearing an event is nice and dandy, but again, what matters a lot in a difficult event is the success rate. This is the very reason why players prepare their fleets in order to meet a minimum of success rate instead of using reckless and countless attempts hoping for a winning lottery ticket. And you are again ignoring the fact that under your logic, you shouldn't even use a boss support at all. Quote:
Refreshing your game is no supposed to be an option to retreat because of a bad decision, otherwise the "continue? go back to base" would't be issued right after a battle, but before a node instead.
__________________
|
|||||
2016-05-28, 12:20 | Link #17725 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
I don't think what you said is wrong. Most are correct in fact. I just don't see that it has anything to do with what I said
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 12:29 | Link #17726 |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 37
|
*sigh* Then don't bring out "numerical" argument when it just fall flat. Having numbers don't mean anything on their own in the said objective which is beating a damn map.
__________________
|
2016-05-28, 12:52 | Link #17727 |
失礼、噛みました
Join Date: Jul 2013
|
Things work very simply for me. I observe those who run supports and how they fare when the supports doesn't appear. Then I gauge the odds of success. If it's high, I won't bring my supports if I'm low on resources and want to maximise the chance of RNG rolling that X% of success. If the odds of making to the boss is high despite the support fail showing up, I'll take that risk. It's a trade-off I have to take when I have limited resources. I'd rather have more chance of letting RNG roll that X%, but that only applies if the odds of success of reaching the boss is high enough for me to do the trade-off.
What I say may not contain a lot of facts and stats but I guess this is what happens when something is MAJORLY reliant on such stupid RNG like this event is(the LBA damage). If the odds of success are lowered significantly without supports and it outweighs the trade-off, then it's another matter altogether. Ultimately in this game of RNG, you decide if the trade-offs are worth it or not.
__________________
|
2016-05-28, 13:15 | Link #17728 |
<(゜∀。)
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Flying in the Air
Age: 36
|
Ye know... I think it's more to do with your wording of 'false sense of security' that sparked the whole mess. You see... when the fact is that throwing in extra resource does increase your chances by a significant X%, albeit not guaranteed, then your claiming of it being 'false sense' appears to be an outright and irrational dismissal... 10 + 1 security is still > 10 security no matter how you argue it. The math is all there. Those marginal resource you 'saved' isn't really gonna make it that much better (it's not like you're saving 30% per run). Plus there's also another hidden resource for this game: Time.
|
2016-05-28, 13:23 | Link #17729 | ||
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
^ This is correct, right? Call % chance of success E7 in one run with Yamato is X1 and without Yamato is X2 . The total resources you have plus expedition is R. And your resources consumption with Yamato is F1, and without Yamato is F2. Assume F2 = 0.75 F1
So unless X1>4/3*X2. Otherwise the use of Yamato won't improve your chance to finish E7. If you believe that your assumption based on proper number. Please prove that X1>4/3*X2. Quote:
What gives you a false sense of security? The most common (ridiculed) example is: life insurance in case of eating by a shark. I means yes, you has the chance to meet a shark. Yes, there is a chance that that shark can eat you. There is also a chance that later they found your half eaten body, your family will get paid. There is a chance that the insurance company won't go bankrupt by then. There is a chance of all that. But by how much? Well quick google can find that number out. But it make you feel that much more secured going to a shark active region, don't you?
__________________
Last edited by risingstar3110; 2016-05-28 at 13:42. |
||
2016-05-28, 14:16 | Link #17730 | |
<(゜∀。)
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Flying in the Air
Age: 36
|
Quote:
Now back to your claim, no. Your "false sense of security" means exactly that. There's no arguing it no matter how you play the word. In fact, the whole 'sense of security' is wrong to begin with because it's statistical fact. |
|
2016-05-28, 14:22 | Link #17731 | |
阿賀野型3番艦、矢矧 Lv180
Graphic Designer
Moderator Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Belgium, Brussels
Age: 37
|
Quote:
This would require a complete simulator for both sides of the argument to prove, hence why I said your numbers don't mean anything on their own because both situations rely on the -present success chance- which fluctate or decrease as your run goes because of the status of your fleet. Example: On node A in Kidou, a wo kai reaches the day cap. Let's ignore all the possible formation, possible targets and so forth and stick with the actual % I've presented before: 27.86% chance for Yamato to be in Chuuha 63.91% chance for Nagato to be in Chuuha Let's assume for a second both are in Chuuha. What do you think the % will look like in the subsequent nodes? Assuming Yamato is already in Chuuha (48HP then), that means she has to take 24 damage to be set on Taiha. As I said, after the initial damage mitigation, she has 67.4 damage to mitigate. As she has to take 24 damage to be in taiha, her armor roll can only negate 43.4 damage at most, which is 73 => 62.39%. As for Nagato, she has 45HP, so 22HP is her Taiha limit. As such, she has to take at least 23 damage to be in taiha among the 81.4 damage she will take after the first damage mitigation. That means 58.4 damage at most. That armor roll is... 97.33333. This means that Nagato must do a perfect armor roll to avoid being in Taiha. 99% chance of being put in taiha. If we consider a median in that equation with an average roll of 50 while both are starting from full health, that means Yamato will never be put in Chuuha while Nagato will never progress to even the third node if we assume some normalization which doesn't make sense. See the problem? The moment 1 incident occur during your progress to your boss node, the probability to reach that boss is significantly altered, and that's only counting their survival rate. What would happen if I were to calculate chances for them to critically damage the wo kai before it attacks? I will leave you that to your imagination, because at this point you should realize by now that this whole mess is a bunch of variables, and there isn't any single constant. That's why your attempt to rationalize your chance of success with saved resources is non sensical in term of numerical perspective because the said "numerical" perspective is flawed due to how dependant it is on the survival rates of your whole fleet at large. Yeah, Yamato consume more fuel than Nagato, and? Can you prove your 0.75 consumption ratio when you have no data that back up your claim as Yamato running five times the map with merely 1 chuuha at most will cost you less than the same attempts with Nagato being Taiha-ed four times a row? What about everyone else? Do you have any evidence that your "numerical point" with the consumption is true based on how many trash is taken out by your fleet, which could alter your repair bill at the end of the day? That's the very reason I insist on your chance of success on a given instance, and not on the long run. At best, you can determine that lighter fleet is more beneficial if your chances of success are high to begin with, but when they start to plummet, it isn't just a mere binomial distribution at all. I repeat again: the most important factor here is your chance to beat the boss, and this means your chance of success for each iteration. Claiming that saving resources is a numerical evidence while the other isn't is nonsense in this context because your "numerical evidence" is a variable. If it was a constant, I would have no rebuttal, but it isn't the case. That's why I never disagreed the value of running lighter fleet (I never contested Kanbekotori's opinion who is practically the same as yours), but rather contested the so called "false sense of security" and "numerical evidence" where it is basically going nowhere. That's why I insist heavily on the success rate on a given instance, and not just mere stats, because stats are just bogus when things count. Remember your attempts with 1 hp left etc? Statistically speaking, the chances of missing several kill runs in a row with the boss left alone during night battle is as close as killing her with just the LBA. But it -does- happen, because stats do not have anything to do with your chances of success whatsoever. Therefore, having more runs available to you doesn't mean much. If you have more runs with decent winning chance, yeah sure. Otherwise? though luck.
__________________
Last edited by Klashikari; 2016-05-28 at 14:59. |
|
2016-05-28, 14:51 | Link #17732 | |
Loli loli hunter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: France
|
Quote:
Chance C of clearing after N runs given a P chance of clearing for a run is : C = 1-(1-P)^N (it's actually the chance of [not failing to clear after N runs], which is much more easier to compute. It's exactly the chance [to clear at least once after N runs]. But it's muuuuch harder to compute for exactly one clear, and won't yield significantly different results for a low P, which is the case here). Thing is, if you want to argue precisely using math and all, better do it right and thoroughly. Or you can just say, "I prefer using Nagatos because I don't like paying too much for a sortie" and leave it at that. Nobody will mind that. |
|
2016-05-28, 15:10 | Link #17733 | |
大佐
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Quote:
And you can take your condescending attitude and shove it where the sun don't shine. I won't fall for such an utterly pathetic attempt, sorry mate.
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 15:22 | Link #17734 | ||
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
C = 1 - (1-P)^1 - (1-P)^2..... - (1-P)^N Where N is the number of time we try. It does not change anything through, just make the equation to be even harder to prove. You can't do anything without P, and that is the issue Quote:
In summary. You are arguing with my opinion, say my opinion is wrong, because it is different with your opinion. Which you claim it as fact.
__________________
|
||
2016-05-28, 15:38 | Link #17737 | |
Loli loli hunter
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: France
|
Quote:
And here I was being respectful and all. Complete waste of time. I'll write this just in case, but math isn't much of something you invent, rather that something you prove. |
|
2016-05-28, 15:44 | Link #17738 | |
大佐
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 15:45 | Link #17739 | |
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2016-05-28, 15:49 | Link #17740 | ||
✘˵╹◡╹˶✘
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
|
Quote:
Quote:
And yes you win the argument. it's totally very logical on your part. Please can we just stop it?
__________________
Last edited by risingstar3110; 2016-05-28 at 16:00. |
||
Tags |
browser game, dmm, ship girls |
|
|