the problem with FE mechanics

[Vykan12]

30 hit for iron, while fine (maybe?) later on, would result in absurdly low hitrates early on, which still leaves us with a huge problem.

That's why I said to also adjust the avoid formula.

[dondon151]

Though it's not on-topic with the first post, this is a very good idea that gets even better the more I think about it. Not only does that make sense realistically, but it also helps make gameplay more interesting and even more balanced. You can have 9001-avoid units without them being broken because, while awesome 1v1, they'll still get raped if they get ganged up on. So no running off and soloing part of the map. This is cool for enemy units, too, especially bosses. You could have them practically require a team effort to be taken down. Can't be slain by just one strong unit.

I personally think that units should be able to queue attacks against enemy units (think countless possibilities of "triangle" attacks, except each unit attacks individually with higher hit and avo instead of 100 hit and crit). It's a bit more realistic this way.

Well that's not a very fair comparison. The hit loss is much lower than the damage loss. The lower damage is less than half as much, while the higher damage's hit is more than half as much. 14*.60 = 8.4. 6*1.00 = 6.

I don't think you understood my point. Average damage is irrelevant here, because either the unit KOs the enemy or doesn't. I would much rather have the option to KO the enemy than to just hack away at its HP. If I changed that 6 to a 9 or a 13, it's not like anything is different.

Average damage doesn't really illustrate anything, unless enemies had like 10^5 HP or something.

That's why I said to also adjust the avoid formula.

That would have extremely minimal effect early on. You'd have basically the equivalent of Lot trying to attack bosses with a Hammer, except for every attack.

Edited June 20, 2009 by dondon151

[grandjackal]

Simple.

Make all weapons available to use as soon as you get them. But lets say you got like a...D rank weapon, and you only have E rank.

Since you're down a rank, you'll have 10 Acc less than at basic calculation. Every rank above adds 10 Acc. So if you have an A rank and wielding a D rank weapon, that's 30 Acc more than basic calculation.

In exchange, give enemies actual speed and luck. Perhaps also tougher.

Perhaps weapon rank could also factor into evade?

That, or perhaps switch my idea of accuracy with evade...

Edited June 20, 2009 by Kuja

[Reikken]

I don't think you understood my point. Average damage is irrelevant here, because either the unit KOs the enemy or doesn't. I would much rather have the option to KO the enemy than to just hack away at its HP. If I changed that 6 to a 9 or a 13, it's not like anything is different.

It certainly does matter. Like if I'm doing 6 damage, but the enemy has 14 hp, then I need 3 hits. Of course 3 hits at 100% is much worse than 1 hit at 60%. However, if it's 9 damage, then that's 2 hits. That's much more comparable. And I may indeed prefer that. Or 7 damage at 100% vs 14 damage at 50%, then I'll go with the 7...usually. If I think that I'll usually only get one attack, then sure, take the 14. Though even that depends.

[Agro]

I think if a character loses avoid by being surrounded by enemies it should instead be decided on how many are attacking him (like a deterioration system). So by the 4th battle, player character may have lost 20 avoid or so. This would also have to apply to enemies, however. It would make more sense realistically, too, since being surrounded by enemies doesn't mean they're actually attacking you.

[Zkirsche]

If you had the option to do 14 damage to an enemy at 60 hit for a KO or 6 damage at 100 hit, which would you choose?

Quite obviously the former. The latter has a 100% chance of KO'ing in 3 rounds. However, the former has a 93.6% chance of 3RKOing.

The latter has a 0% chance of KOing in one hit, the former has a 60% chance. That's massive. In 2 rounds, the latter still only has a 0% chance of KOing in one hit, the former has 84% chance of KOing in 2 rounds.

See, the former can kill much, much quicker than the latter.

[dondon151]

It certainly does matter. Like if I'm doing 6 damage, but the enemy has 14 hp, then I need 3 hits. Of course 3 hits at 100% is much worse than 1 hit at 60%. However, if it's 9 damage, then that's 2 hits. That's much more comparable. And I may indeed prefer that. Or 7 damage at 100% vs 14 damage at 50%, then I'll go with the 7...usually. If I think that I'll usually only get one attack, then sure, take the 14. Though even that depends.

In this game you generally do only get one attack. If unit A doesn't kill an enemy, then unit B will.

[Zkirsche]

It certainly does matter. Like if I'm doing 6 damage, but the enemy has 14 hp, then I need 3 hits. Of course 3 hits at 100% is much worse than 1 hit at 60%. However, if it's 9 damage, then that's 2 hits. That's much more comparable. And I may indeed prefer that. Or 7 damage at 100% vs 14 damage at 50%, then I'll go with the 7...usually. If I think that I'll usually only get one attack, then sure, take the 14. Though even that depends.

I agree with this. With 14 damage at 50% chance to hit, the chance to to kill in 2 rounds is 75%. Whereas with the 7 damage at 100% hit, the chance to 2RKO is 100%, definite > non-definite.

In this game you generally do only get one attack. If unit A doesn't kill an enemy, then unit B will.

That depends on the number of enemies there are. In a chapter like 4-5 in RD, there are generally too many enemies to kill in one turn, meaning a unit could attack twice in one go.

Of course this is just comparing player phrase. If we were to look at enemy phrases then we get a much more detailed argument. Say that unit A attacked a unit on the player phrase and 5 units, including the one he attacked, attacked him on the enemy phrase. With the 14 damage but 50% Hit, he has a 75% chance of killing the guy he attacked on the player phrase. Let's just say he's dead. Now, logic would dictate that another 2 attacks will miss, meaning that 2 of the 4 units that attacked him on the enemy phrase still live.

With the 7 damage attack, he has a 100% chance of killing the enemy who he attacked on the player phrase, then he deals 50% damage to the other 4 units.

Now, this is effectively tie game as after the turn after next, there is a high possibility that all 5 units that were in combat with unit A are dead whether he dealt full of half damage to them. However, teh 14 damage attack is better for durabiltiy purposes, as it leaves less enemies alive.

So, with enemy phrase in mind, it's better to have the 14 damage and 50% hit than have 7 damage and 100% hit.

Of course, there are many, many more factors to include such as criticals, mastery activation, skills, ranged attackers on enemy phrase etcetera. But let's keep this as simple as possible, shall we?

Edited June 20, 2009 by kirsche

[Tino]

I agree with this. With 14 damage at 50% chance to hit, the chance to to kill in 2 rounds is 75%. Whereas with the 7 damage at 100% hit, the chance to 2RKO is 100%, definite > non-definite.

That's completely ignoring the fact that the 14 damage is able to OHKO, whereas the 7 damage is not.

Not that I disagree with choosing the 7 damage, you just can't simply neglect the other possibility and shove off its primary advantage.

And by the way, it's "phase", not "phrase". A phrase is a sequence of words intended to have meaning.

Just wanted to point that out. Nothing important.

[Zkirsche]

That's completely ignoring the fact that the 14 damage is able to OHKO, whereas the 7 damage is not.

Not that I disagree with choosing the 7 damage, you just can't simply neglect the other possibility and shove off its primary advantage.

I understand that, but it is not worth it overall due to the high chance of it missing/hitting.

And by the way, it's "phase", not "phrase". A phrase is a sequence of words intended to have meaning.

Pfft. Who cares? Phrase, Phase or Phraser. My point still stands.

[Tino]

As I said, it's nothing important, just something I wanted to point out.

I understand that, but it is not worth it overall due to the high chance of it missing/hitting.

There's a little more to it, though. Let's take this 14 dmg/7 dmg example again. Let's pretend the enemy is 1HKOed by the 14 dmg, and 2HKOed by the 7 dmg.

Chance to ORKO:

14: 0.5

7: 0

Chance to 2RKO:

14: 0.75

7: 1

The guy with 14 damage has an average chance of 0.625 to KO the enemy, while the guy with 7 damage has an average of 0.5 to do so.

Now double the amount of rounds they need to KO and use this equation to figure out the enemy's chance of death after x attacks:

P = (N choose R) x (H)^R x (1-H)^(N-R)

P = probability of death

N= # of attacks

R = # of attacks that land successfully

H = the probability of an attack landing, and is expressed as a decimal.

Credit goes to vykan for it.

Chance to ORKO:

14: 0

7: 0

Chance to 2RKO:

14: 0.25

7: 0

Chance to 3RKO:

14: 0.375

7: 0

Chance to 4RKO:

14: 0.375 (wtf?)

7: 1

The average chance to KO for the guy with 14 dmg is 0.25, and so is the average chance for the guy with 7 dmg. Now, the slightest bit of crt for the 14 dmg guy gives him a lead already, as it increases his chance to ORKO.

And of course that's with assuming the seemingly ridiculous 0.375 chance to 4RKO, which makes we wonder if vykan's equation is actually the right one to use for calculation of all chances of death. Either way, since it's likely higher, that crit may not even matter since his chances to KO are higher without it anyway.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Tino

[Renall]

Chainey mentioned this about FE5: The enemies sucked dick, but they were exceedingly well-equipped (poor Dalshien, enjoy facing Hammers every single map when you're supposed to be the tank). Enemies should not be using Iron midgame or Steel lategame unless it's a deliberate use of lower-end weaponry to keep AS up. Effective weapons, killers, that sort of thing should be fairly common (I know killers are unpopular because of the annoyance of lucky enemy crits but... too bad; I guess you can also nerf strength of crits). They should have few uses, but be decent weight (around Steel perhaps). More 1-2 range as well, though perhaps considerably less accurate. The few uses is so that Thieves are actually useful in stealing them, but swiping a Hammer doesn't give you ages upon ages of effective strikes.

With better-equipped enemies, even if they aren't very threatening defensively, you're still taking risks against them if they do manage to attack you. Granted, you need to be careful with the effective weapons or balance them so that foot units with no types aren't actually better than supposedly superior units (lol being an Armor is a liability at equal DEF). Or add an effective type against "infantry" units so there's no character immune to all effective weapons.

[Zkirsche]

P = (N choose R) x (H)^R x (1-H)^(N-R)

That's the problem with the formula. That is effectively the chance to miss ^ Number of rounds - number of attacks that're needed to kill the enemy.

The problem is that there's multiple scenario's in which he misses. In 3 rounds, said unit can hit then hit; hit, miss then hit or miss, then hit twice. You have to add up all these percentages at once. What that formula does is add up hit then hit, then miss then hit twice.

The formula is never ending:

P = (Hit * Hit) + (R+X(Hit*Hit(Miss^(X+1))))

P = probability of dying

R = number of rounds to kill enemy

X = Number of bracketed formulas before it -1.

You have to add a (R+X(Hit*Hit(Miss^(X+1)))) for each extra round added. So teh formula is:

P = (Hit * Hit) + N-2(R+X(Hit*Hit(Miss^(X+1))))

With N = Number of rounds.

My maths is only so advanced.

Edited June 22, 2009 by kirsche

[dondon151]

The problem is that there's multiple scenario's in which he misses. In 3 rounds, said unit can hit then hit; hit, miss then hit or miss, then hit twice. You have to add up all these percentages at once. What that formula does is add up hit then hit, then miss then hit twice.

That's what the nCr is for. Learn your binomial theorem!

[Zkirsche]

That's what the nCr is for. Learn your binomial theorem!

Well excuse me, I've only just started AS level maths.

Chance to 3RKO:

14: 0.375

7: 0

This is incorrect. It is not 0.375, but 0.5. As:

hit * hit = 0.25.

hit * hit * miss = 0.125

hit * hit * miss = 0.125

Which equals 0.5. Just to show you that thsi is correct, let's try the opposite:

hit * miss * miss = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 * 0.5 = 0.125

miss * hit * miss = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 * 0.5 = 0.125

miss * miss * hit = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 * 0.5 = 0.125

miss * miss * miss = 0.5 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25 * 0.5 = 0.125

0.125 * 4 = 0.5.

So teh chance that he doesn't kill the enemy is also 0.5.

Thus, Vykan's formula is incorrect or Tino used it wrong.

Edited June 20, 2009 by kirsche

[Vykan12]

That would have extremely minimal effect early on. You'd have basically the equivalent of Lot trying to attack bosses with a Hammer, except for every attack.

I see what you mean now (enemies can dodge hits even if they have 0 avo).

I'd try something like this:

hit rate = [100 - enemy avo] + weapon hit

The weapon hit could then be set to lower values, and the disparity between eg/ a javelin and a steel sword could be better controlled.

[Reikken]

That still has the problem of dodgy classes being very un-dodgy early on.

[Vykan12]

Oh and btw, the binomial formula is actually a sum of terms in most cases:.

Eg/ Boyd dies in 4 hits at 40% true. Calculate the odds of him dying in 6.

Answer: There's 3 ways for him to die. He gets hit 4 times, 5 or 6. So the answer is:

(6 C 4) (0.4)^4 (0.6)^2 + (6 C 5) (0.4)^5 (0.6)^1 + (6 C 6)(0.4)^6 (0.6)^0 = 13.284 + 3.6864 + 0.4096 = 17.38%

Usually I only calculate the first term (the 13%) since the other ones don't have that big of an effect on the probability, and my opponent has to spot the mistake regardless :P

That still has the problem of dodgy classes being very un-dodgy early on.

We could try adjusting the 100 value to something slightly lower. And besides, there's not many classes who are very dodgy early on in any FE to begin with.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Vykan12

[dondon151]

Well excuse me, I've only just started AS level maths.

I was just joking around.

We could try adjusting the 100 value to something slightly lower. And besides, there's not many classes who are very dodgy early on in any FE to begin with.

Right, but Reikken's trying to make dodgy classes dodgy throughout the whole game.

[Vykan12]

You could do that by inflating the AS value of those dodgy characters. They double everything already, so the overkill AS is assisting their avo. To ensure they don't become broken later in the game, adjust their avo growth accordingly.

[Tino]

Ah yes, I completely forgot about that.

So that kind of changes my analogy.

This remains the same:

Chance to ORKO:

14: 0.5

7: 0

Chance to 2RKO:

14: 0.75

7: 1

But this will change:

Chance to ORKO:

14: 0

7: 0

Chance to 2RKO:

14: 0.25

7: 0

Chance to 3RKO:

14: 0.5

7: 0

Chance to 4RKO:

14: 0.6875

7: 1

So it only works more in the favor of the unit with the lower hit once their relative amount of damage dealt get worse.

[Rodykitty]

I've always said for FEDS Swordmasters that they want an evade bonus more than a crit bonus people missed, so that they'll actually be capable of something Heroes are not.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Chainey

[Zkirsche]

Eg/ Boyd dies in 4 hits at 40% true. Calculate the odds of him dying in 6.

Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4^4= 0.0256

Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

So it's 0.0256 + 0.01536*4 + 0.009216 * 10 = 0.0256 + 0.08704 + 0.09216 = 20.47%

Miscalculated. It was right.

I was just joking around.

I was being sarcastic myself. You have every right to critisize me.

Right, but Reikken's trying to make dodgy classes dodgy throughout the whole game.

For that they'll need better avoid growths.

Ah yes, I completely forgot about that.

Yayz for my method.

Edited June 21, 2009 by kirsche

[Reikken]

For that they'll need better avoid growths.

eh what?

Growths have nothing to do with this at all. Growths have no effect on bases and little to no effect on the first few chapters.

[Reikken]

Eg/ Boyd dies in 4 hits at 40% true. Calculate the odds of him dying in 6.

Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4^4= 0.0256

Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6 = 0.01536

Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

Miss * Hit * Hit * Hit * Miss * Hit = 0.4 ^ 4 * 0.6^2 = 0.009216

So it's 0.0256 + 0.01536*4 + 0.009216 * 10 = 0.0256 + 0.08704 + 0.09216 = 0.2047%

Why are our results so different?

I get 17.92%, using a program I made quite a while ago.

0.06144 for the second term rather than your 0.08704

And now that I look at it... 0.01536*4 = 0.06144. How did you get that .08 number?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Reikken