Patch Suggestions

[Ghost]

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Chuck Norris

[Bonescorpion]

NO shit I tested it against a computer, no shit its easy to outmicro a computer. I clearly stated that, thats exactly was my point. I also have clearly stated that the Death/kill ration of UNUPGRADED M1 tanks vs AT guns is 1.15/1.
Unupgraded M1 tank does 50 damage vs an unupgraded AT gun.
An upgrdaded AT gun does 57 damage vs an unupgraded M1 Tank.
AT gun has 455 HP's and is going to take 9.1 shots to kill an M1
M1 Tank has 450 HP's and is going to take 7.89 shots to kill that AT gun

9.1/7.89 = 1.1533/1

This is the ratio of unupgraded M1 Tank vs unupgraded AT gun. I have always stated that, it was obviously missed.
This is where I disproved people's criticism that M1 does not have close to a 1:1 kill/loss ratio.

I have already provided proof, you just dont like because you seem to think it came out of thin air.

Test
23 M1 losses 16 AT guns 1.43:1
16 M1 losses 20 AT guns .8:1
23 M1 losses 17 AT guns 1.34:1
21 M1 losses 20 AT guns .95:1
Very small sample size but it shows that with my ratio of 1.15:1 (23:20) that there is a margin that allows the M1's to win. It is close to 1:1 ratio. There is cost factored into the RPS triangle, so it is cheaper to create AT guns (I will assume that you are correct about it only being cost). Thus the AT gun kills M1 spending similar totals of resources, but this does not mean that unit wise the M1 cannot kill an AT gun with very equal numbers. This is my point that I have been unable to get across. This is why I dont feel that allowing gun armor to be improved like every other armor in the game is unfair or unbalanced. The AT gun has the advantage with cost and a slight advantage with damage dealt. The M1 has the drawbacks of cost, pop cap and dealing less damage vs the AT gun.
I am hearing two cries about balancing in this game, one says its damage and that Tanks shouldnt be able to kill AT guns. Thats fine, but is it damage dealt or cost that you want to say is the balancing. I hear about the cost, this proves that the AT gun is more cost efficient. I hear about the damage, this proves that the AT gun has the advantage here as well. Before I can answer your Zorg vs Anti Zorgs I need to know what do you want their balance to be based upon? Damage or cost?

My numbers are accurate, find me an armor upgrade that is not 20% in the civilization bonus, and not 15%>1 in the game (fyi the >1 is the minimum upgrade is 1). Try Sword Calvary and field cannon. I do stand corrected Sword Calvary's in game upgrade is 30% per upgrade. Field Cannon is 14% and 16% I am assuming to account for a total of 30% and whole numbers.

I misread your statement that most people know, but you are stated that all old players seem to know this as "Common Knowledge". Very similar just worded differently IMO.

In the end I must say that if the Designers felt that the game should be balanced on cost then it is irrelevant if a Tank can kill an AT gun. Simple because it costs 37.5% more. So as long as that cost factor is in place it should not matter that a player can counter the AT gun a bit at the expense of HP's (Hp's are the only defence against Bazookas, F/Bers, and AT heli's). No different then a player can exploit the damage bonus on Marines to kill AT guns faster, but at the expense of range, hp's or speed (normally hps in my experiences). In the end increasing gun armor is only going to block about 8 more damage from an AT gun. This allows the player to choose instead of the usual 2 attack, 2 range, 1 hp. Maybe its better to go 2 attack, 2 range, 2 Armor (only costs 1 upgrade point to upgrade armor). That extra damage is going to decrease the unit ratio in favor of the M1 but it does nothing for the cost and the other player upgrading. The AT Gun still has the multiplier on attack, and the at gun still has a cheaper counter unit to produce.

[Ghost]

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

[Captain Nemo]

NO shit I tested it against a computer, no shit its easy to outmicro a computer. I clearly stated that, thats exactly was my point. I also have clearly stated that the Death/kill ration of UNUPGRADED M1 tanks vs AT guns is 1.15/1.
Unupgraded M1 tank does 50 damage vs an unupgraded AT gun.
An upgrdaded AT gun does 57 damage vs an unupgraded M1 Tank.
AT gun has 455 HP's and is going to take 9.1 shots to kill an M1
M1 Tank has 450 HP's and is going to take 7.89 shots to kill that AT gun

9.1/7.89 = 1.1533/1

This is the ratio of unupgraded M1 Tank vs unupgraded AT gun. I have always stated that, it was obviously missed.
This is where I disproved people's criticism that M1 does not have close to a 1:1 kill/loss ratio.

I have already provided proof, you just dont like because you seem to think it came out of thin air.

Test
23 M1 losses 16 AT guns 1.43:1
16 M1 losses 20 AT guns .8:1
23 M1 losses 17 AT guns 1.34:1
21 M1 losses 20 AT guns .95:1
Very small sample size but it shows that with my ratio of 1.15:1 (23:20) that there is a margin that allows the M1's to win. It is close to 1:1 ratio. There is cost factored into the RPS triangle, so it is cheaper to create AT guns (I will assume that you are correct about it only being cost). Thus the AT gun kills M1 spending similar totals of resources, but this does not mean that unit wise the M1 cannot kill an AT gun with very equal numbers. This is my point that I have been unable to get across. This is why I dont feel that allowing gun armor to be improved like every other armor in the game is unfair or unbalanced. The AT gun has the advantage with cost and a slight advantage with damage dealt. The M1 has the drawbacks of cost, pop cap and dealing less damage vs the AT gun.
I am hearing two cries about balancing in this game, one says its damage and that Tanks shouldnt be able to kill AT guns. Thats fine, but is it damage dealt or cost that you want to say is the balancing. I hear about the cost, this proves that the AT gun is more cost efficient. I hear about the damage, this proves that the AT gun has the advantage here as well. Before I can answer your Zorg vs Anti Zorgs I need to know what do you want their balance to be based upon? Damage or cost?

My numbers are accurate, find me an armor upgrade that is not 20% in the civilization bonus, and not 15%>1 in the game (fyi the >1 is the minimum upgrade is 1). Try Sword Calvary and field cannon. I do stand corrected Sword Calvary's in game upgrade is 30% per upgrade. Field Cannon is 14% and 16% I am assuming to account for a total of 30% and whole numbers.

I misread your statement that most people know, but you are stated that all old players seem to know this as "Common Knowledge". Very similar just worded differently IMO.

In the end I must say that if the Designers felt that the game should be balanced on cost then it is irrelevant if a Tank can kill an AT gun. Simple because it costs 37.5% more. So as long as that cost factor is in place it should not matter that a player can counter the AT gun a bit at the expense of HP's (Hp's are the only defence against Bazookas, F/Bers, and AT heli's). No different then a player can exploit the damage bonus on Marines to kill AT guns faster, but at the expense of range, hp's or speed (normally hps in my experiences). In the end increasing gun armor is only going to block about 8 more damage from an AT gun. This allows the player to choose instead of the usual 2 attack, 2 range, 1 hp. Maybe its better to go 2 attack, 2 range, 2 Armor (only costs 1 upgrade point to upgrade armor). That extra damage is going to decrease the unit ratio in favor of the M1 but it does nothing for the cost and the other player upgrading. The AT Gun still has the multiplier on attack, and the at gun still has a cheaper counter unit to produce.

dude this is EE not a mathclass or anything. We tested 23 M1's vs 20 AT guns SEVERAL TIMES with the same result. AT always win this and always with about 7-8 survivors. TEST THIS YOURSELF and you will see. AND DON'T FUCKING TEST IT VS AN EASY COMP IT'S NOT MICRO THAT MAKES YOU WIN IT'S THE FACT THAT EASY COMP UNITS ARE GENERALLY JUST WEAKER. Try to read what we fucking say for a change. Sorry but this is getting repetitive I'm wondering if you can even read at this point.

[Bonescorpion]

Lol thats funny, I did not test against easy comp. As far as reading maybe you should reread my post about the whole zorg bullshit. It is simple math. Just because you dont want to understand it is not my fault. I do not know why we both got different results, but that is why I said that there are always going to be variables. I will tell you this, all the units fired at the same time. There was no delay, and a lot depending on the targeting of the AI.

I have read what you had to say, its you who cant seem to get it through your head. You dont like, get the fuck out of the thread, I could care less about whether you think I am right or not, you are the one so determined to prove me wrong and yourself right. Keep insulting away it really doesnt bother me............

[孫子兵法]

Bonescorpion, your numbers only hold true given all of the assumptions that you have made in deriving them, namely that:

1. Units will fire at exactly the same times
2. There is no difference in the rate of fire between units
3. There are only 1 of each unit
4. That fractional attacks are even worth considering in the way you are measuring.

I disagree with #4, as it is useless when measuring in such a way, and distorts actual results because fractional attacks are impossible.

I also find the limitation imposed by #3 to make what you are measuring worthless. While you seem to believe that it scales up fine (as evidenced by you accepting 1.15:1 = 23:20, as well as not including a giant disclaimer that this does not hold outside of 1 vs 1 of the units, which lead me to reasonably assume that your proportion did in fact scale (even though it doing so violates common sense, hence why I tested it), cause, it's a proportion...), this is only true if we assume that it is only one unit engaging an individual unit. Such behavior simply doesn't happen, especially with larger amounts of units, and it won't happen in any human versus human conflict.

A much better way to measure would be to instead of #4 to only count full attacks. (And obviously, add the number of attacks tanks would need to defeat the remaining AT to the numerator of the fraction)

This makes a 1vs1 conflict be 5/4, a 2 vs 2 conflict be 21/16, a 3 vs 3 conflict be 36/26, and 4 vs 4 conflict be 24/17.

This assumes:
1. Units will fire at the same times exactly
2. There are no differences in the rate of fire between units, or in new target acquisition time.
3. "Overkill" is wasted, because all units fire at the exact same times.
4. All units focus-fire on only one opposing unit until that unit is dead.

It is therefore a bit more realistic than your numbers. As you can see when you divide the fractions, the disparity actually increases the more units you involve.

Either way, this isn't even an accurate model. It's a whole hell of a lot more realistic, useful, and better than your model, but it's far from being even remotely accurate.

Next time, when you argue from the numbers, please say how you got them right away, and if your numbers are 100% accurate given the assumptions you made which aren't accurate in actuality and make the usability of the results go into the "what's the point of using this" end of the spectrum, don't say they're 100% accurate and that people are clearly wrong for questioning them.

It should also be noted, that a revised version of your model can be made to fit new conditions as well (assume the same stuff as your original model, except instead of #3 assume at and tanks are equal, by taking

((Individual Anti Tank Hit Points * Number of Anti Tanks)/Tank Attack^(Number of tanks))/((Individual Tank Hit Points * Number of Tanks)/Anti Tank Attack^(Number of AT))

For example, 2 vs 2 using this we get 1.31404 as the result, which shows us again that as the number of units increases, the disparity between them also increases...

Anyway, all the models presented here suck, especially yours. Will you admit that, and admit that it's no where close to being anywhere near 100% accurate as you said it was? And will you also apologize for wasting our time with it, and not being upfront about how it was derived until now, and for asserting that actual evidence is no good compared to your extremely flawed model?

[taco]

imo bonescorp should stfu.. "M1s should beat at's wtf is that honestly.. i dont care about this historical shit, whether u are/aren't right is completely irrelevant.. at this point the only thing which seems to b 100% accurate is that ur a complete and utter moron who is getting anal raped by ????

[Ghost]

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

Bonescorpion, answer the fucking question IMO.

[Bonescorpion]

I dont have to provide anything, you entered my thread and attacked my thoughts. Nobody asked you to "waste" your time. Nobody asked you to come up with your own model. Nobody asked you to do anything. Of course the ratio of kills to losses is going to scale exponentially as the ratio of units become skewed. Your assumptions are your own problem.
Even your more complicated model does not account for lose of units fire. In many cases the group that loses the first unit or two has lost significant firepower.

Going to do HP's based on it taking 8 shots to kill for an AT gun and 10 for a M1 8*57 and 10*50 accounting for overkill
This gives the M1 10488 hp's and the AT gun 10000 (assuming 23 m1 and 20 at)

10488-1140 = 9348 or 20.5 M1's with still 21 shots available 10000-1150 = 8850 or 17.7 AT guns with 18 shots available
9348-1026 = 8322(-2.25 m1's) 18.25 M1's 8850-1050= 7800(-2.1 AT) 15.6 AT guns
8322-912= 7410(-2 m1's) 16.25 M1's 7800-950= 6850(-1.9) 13.7 at guns
7410-798= 6612(-1.75) 14.5 m1's 6850-850= 6000(-1.7)12 at
6612-684= 5928(-1.5) 13 m1's 6000-750= 5250(-1.5) 10.5 at
5928-627= 5301(-1.375) 11.625 m1's 5250-650= 4600 (-1.3) 9.2 at
5301-570= 4731 (-1.25) 10.375 m1's 4600-600= 4000(-1.2) 8 at
4731-456= 4275(-1) 9.375 m1's 4000-550 3450(-1.1) 6.9 at
4275-399= 3876(-.875) 8.5 m1's 3450-500 2950(-1) 5.9 at
3876-342= 3534(-.75) 7.75 m1's 2950-450 2500(-.9) 5 at
3534-285= 3249(-.625) 7.125 m1's 2500-400 2100(-. 4.2 at
3249-285= 2964(-.625) 6.5 m1 2100-400 1700(-. 3.4 at
2964-228= 2736(-.5) 6 m1 1700-350 1350(-.7) 2.7 at

Do I need to finish?

[Ghost]

Do I need to finish?

Yes, by answering the fucking question.

[Bonescorpion]

imo bonescorp should stfu.. "M1s should beat at's wtf is that honestly.. i dont care about this historical shit, whether u are/aren't right is completely irrelevant.. at this point the only thing which seems to b 100% accurate is that ur a complete and utter moron who is getting anal raped by ????

M1's can beat AT guns, simple civ damage upgrade. Go fist yourself.
A complete and utter moron who is respected enough by the designers of the game to be invited to not one but two playtestings of EE2 and EE3. Yea ok.........

[Ghost]

Stop avoiding the question.

[taco]

ur model is flawed from the start, as u cant have half or a seventh of a unit making the model not fit for the intended purpose only thing u managed to show is that u no how compound intrest/loan repayments works with i believe is equal to a 16-18 yrolds understanding of maths and probability, i am wondering if u deducted attack for having half a unit, or kept it on there aswell (couldn't b bothered checking since its already flawed). as for ur 1st paragraph if u want to play it that way - U CAME ONTO THIER FORUM, NOBODY ASKED U TO POST HERE, NO1 ASKED FOR UR OPINION. ETC ETC..
the closest thing to getting a valid result is using "Cēterīs paribus" at least i believe so for ee. cuts out all this other factoring in, but if u believe its 2 simplistic then u should do a few assumptions based off it, eg. attack, rof, hp, cr, etc etc

edit: so we have u to thank for the failures of ee2 and 3.. not much to claim there buddy at least from the ee1 pov.

[Bonescorpion]

They wouldnt listen to me about ee3. Of course you count the partial unit. ITS NOT DEAD YET.

[孫子兵法]

Of course the ratio of kills to losses is going to scale exponentially as the ratio of units become skewed. Your assumptions are your own problem.

No, here's the problem. You clearly did not know how it scaled. If you did, you would have,

1) Mentioned how your "model" was constructed and what it was valid for, or you would have immediately gone "WTF ARE YOU DOING THAT FOR" in response to my tests. You did neither.
2) Not said your math was based on a 10 vs 10 situation. Oops.
3) Mentioned, or at least eluded to the fact you knew this at least one time before it was made clear to you.

My assumptions were only reasonable based upon the data you presented. The error is a result of your actions, or lack thereof.

Even your more complicated model does not account for lose of units fire. In many cases the group that loses the first unit or two has lost significant firepower.

You're retarded. The very last model I presented does not, you are correct. Why? It was created in about 30 seconds, to show you how much better your original model could have been with essentially zero effort involved at all. You know, the "100% accurate" one you had which "disproved" actual evidence in your mind, as well as was clear undeniable proof that you were correct.

Had you even looked at the first model I presented, however, and bothered to understand it, you'd see that it did take lost units into account. And I hardly put any work into that one, either.

Do I need to finish?

Please don't.