04-18-2018, 01:21 PM | #21 | ||||||
Join Date: Oct 2008
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
Quote:
So 2 examples of attacker roll with 3 corresponding defender rolls. Attacker rolls a 5: Defender 5: 0 bonus Attacker rolls a 5: Defender 10: +5 bonus Attacker rolls a 5: Defender 15: +10 bonus Attacker rolls a 15: Defender 5: 0 bonus Attacker rolls a 15: Defender 10: 0 bonus Attacker rolls a 15: Defender 15: +0 bonus See the difference? Quote:
Quote:
If you change the parameters the thing is of course different. Quote:
The 1.85% probability to crit at skill 14/attack is calculated in as 1.85%/round for the one attack/round person and half that for the other in the final hit chance. Quote:
Quote:
All the things I have written are in context of the OPs numbers and probabilities. If you change the numbers the calculation changes and actual dice rolls are of course random, but in the long run following the odds is likely a better idea than not following them.. :) |
||||||
04-18-2018, 02:10 PM | #22 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
At equal skill, we expect the attacker to win the contest 45.4% of the time, with an average margin of success of 3.367. If the attacker knows he won, he spent a total of 3.2 attacks.
At equal skill, ideal deceptive attack is easily calculated: Defense=Skill/2+1: DA to 14, defender parry 8. Hit chance 68%. Defense=Skill/2+2: DA to 14, defender parry 9. Hit chance 57%. Defense=Skill/2+3: DA to 12, defender parry 9. Hit chance 47%. Defense=Skill/2+4: DA to 12, defender parry 10. Hit chance 38%. Defense=Skill/2+5: DA to 12, defender parry 11. Hit chance 29%. Defense=Skill/2+6: DA to 12, defender parry 12. Hit chance 21%. Defense=Skill/2+7: DA to 10, defender parry 12. Hit chance 14%. Defense=Skill/2+8: if skill 16+, try to roll crits. Hit chance 11% So, for the feint to be worthwhile, figure it's -3 defender parry but need to multiply hit chance by 3. Checking the above: 29%/11% = 2.64 38%/14% = 2.71 47%/21% = 2.24 57%/29% = 1.97 68%/38% = 1.79 Conclusion: a feint against an equal skill opponent is not worthwhile unless unusual circumstances are in effect. |
04-18-2018, 05:40 PM | #23 | |||||||
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
Quote:
Yes but that doesn't effect the fact that the margin of victory is what defines the end result (it just ends the sliding scale of margin of victory at net zero success = no effect, anything past that is irrelevant and you can't get any more no effect, than no effect. Quote:
a like for like comparison as in comparing an equally likely distribution of results is: Attacker rolls 1 defender rolls 1 = 0 net Attacker rolls 2 defender rolls 2 = 0 net .... Attacker rolls 10 defender rolls 10 = 0 net and so, in each pair each side is as likely as the other. The point being if the skill is equal each has the same distribution of MoS as the other. As the defenders MoS negates the attackers on a one for one basis, and is as likely to occur as the attackers there is no net gain on average. Again you have to look at the overall distribution of margin of victory. Yes the attacker could get a margin of victory of 10 MoS, but it's just as likely that the defender will. Same is true for 5 margin of victory or 2 or 0 and so on. Now as you say it doesn't matter how much the defender wins by, but that's not the point because that's not what we're looking at here. For there to be an advantage for the attacker ie. the odds to be in their favour instead of 50/50* there has to be more chance of them getting more MoS than the defender. But that isn't the case as they have the same distribution of chances to get the same results as each other, because they have the same skill and thus the same chances of getting the same MoS as each other. Put it simply I have Skill 14 and you have skill 14, we each roll 3d6, who do you bet on to win? Another way to look at it, lets say GURPS works on flipping coins, and a QC is decided by the attacker and defender flipping coins. each head that comes up is a success each tails is not. If both are of equal skill we flip the same number of coins. So the point is we each have the same chance of getting successes as each other just like in a GURPS QC counting MoS against the same skill level. Now yes it is possible for one to flip more heads than the other even if we flip the same number of coins (one flipped coins better), just as it's possible for a QC against equal skills to have one come up with more MoS than anther (one rolled lower). Now the more coins we both flip the greater the margin in victory can potentially be. If we both flip 2 coins the greatest margin of victory possible is 2 , if we both flip 10 it's 10. Just as is the case if we ere doing GURPS QC against skill 15 each as opposed to 5 each. But neither side has an advantage. (and of course any net win by the defender is a total win, and in fact so is a draw) *or in fact 45/55 I think as ties go to the defender Quote:
Quote:
You think having two chances at 17% is the same as having one chance at 34% (in terms of number of likely successful hits)? I think you talking about averaging hits over time with one distribution, rather than comparing probabilities of two different ones over the same time. Quote:
(of course if the single better change of general success also tips over the Critical range that changes) Quote:
Quote:
Honestly give it go throw a bunch of equal QC feints see what the end result is over 10 or 20 in terms of how many successfully inflict defence penalties. Ties go to the defender of course, and remember you are halving your attacks by doing that. You have to have pretty tiny chance of getting past you opponents defences for this to be a net positive tactic, especially when you take into account Crit fishing. If they have such a huge defence requiring such a tactic you need a great feint result to see much benefit, and if your skills are equal your chances of getting a great feint are low even if you mange to win the QC (you have to roll well and they have to roll badly). Last edited by Tomsdad; 04-19-2018 at 03:29 AM. |
|||||||
04-18-2018, 08:48 PM | #24 |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
I always appreciate it when someone reminds us of the nature of the one second turn. It is a significant design model in GURPS with consequences.
|
04-18-2018, 08:53 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Central Texas, north of Austin
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
Quote:
I'm a bit bothered by the necessity to over rely on critical hits. If two opponents have high attack and defense skills, it seems a bit perverse that the usual success roll mechanics fail to apply as well as the alternate critical hit mechanics as sophisticated as they are. Why should defense skill only matter when its low enough to warrant normal success rolls? (When relying on critical hits, defense ability loses meaning.) In effect, a two-tiered combat mechanic emerges. I'm not really asking for a solution as much as making an observation. Every system has its idiosyncrasies. Last edited by Tom H.; 04-18-2018 at 08:56 PM. Reason: Grammar |
|
04-18-2018, 09:11 PM | #26 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
I wouldn't describe this as a "necessity" by any means. The circumstances I was talking about (equal combat skills, and no opportunities to exploit the environment or tactics against the opponent) are, in my experience, very rare. Usually, there's going to be some way to reduce the opponent's defense. Personally, since I feel that that kind of thing is what makes combats actually interesting, I'm in favor of this result.
|
04-18-2018, 09:26 PM | #27 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
Quote:
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
04-18-2018, 09:32 PM | #28 |
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON, CA
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
It is really not uncommon in games I've played to have PCs with active defenses in the 16-20 range before retreat bonuses, and to face enemies with similar defense levels. Deceptive attacks to off-shield flanks, two-or-more on one, rear attacks, magical spells for debuffs, bad footing, feints, close combat attacks (including grapples) - all of these things serve to push down defenses, and while 'one on one, both facing each other' would be interminable, neither PCs nor opponents ever actually do that.
__________________
M2: Everything is true. GP: Even false things? M2: Even false things are true. GP: How can that be? M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it. |
04-18-2018, 09:38 PM | #29 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
And this, right here, is the crux of the issue with the extremely high defenses with middling skill levels. You make it very difficult for the opponent to hit you, but you also make it impossible to hit your opponent. Which means that it is only a matter of time before he hits you enough to kill you. It is not a winning tactic. It is not even a survival tactic unless you are just trying to stall your opponent long enough for something else to happen (which can be a valid tactic in some situations; e.g. to hold the enemies back long enough for the mage to cast his spell, or to let the explosives go off, or for your friend to make it over to you so you can double-team the opponent, or whatever). However, in and of itself, if you are relying on Retreating and - especially - if you are relying on All Out Defending, you are not playing to win the fight.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator GURPSLand I shall pull the pin from this healing grenade and... Kaboom-baya. |
04-18-2018, 09:42 PM | #30 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Re: High defenses in 4th edition
The important thing to remember: in real life “defense is to offense as 3 is to one”... and it’s true.
However the defender sacrifices the tactical and sometimes strategic initiative. In GURPS terms, the opponent who all out defends and constantly retreats can’t defend an objective or person, can’t hold an ally’s flank, can’t end the fight except by surrender or fleeing the field and EVENTUALLY an attack will get thru. That’s pretty close to real life. ...as detailed above, in game terms, there are several ways to reduce the “near perfect” defense. However, your NEAR perfect defense is giving your opponent a PERFECT defense... you can’t hit them at all... so in the long run, you lose. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|