losses

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: losses

Post by Special Agent 47 on Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:32 pm

While it is not a typo I think it needs to be reworded due to the confusion it has created and still creates. Those who read the tool tip and do not come to forms will never understand how it really works.

Tool tip for assaults reads
Assault to deal devistating damage on enemy defenses. Use this mission to efficently destroy enemy defenses. You lose 5% of your strike force, enemy loses 4%

We now have been told by administration the attacking force loses are based on the defending force losses + 25% and adjusted for tech levels. The present tip is misleading in the fact your losses as an attacker have nothing to do with the size of your attack force. Attackers losses are based soley on the defenders losses.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Admin on Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:54 am

Special Agent 47 wrote:While it is not a typo I think it needs to be reworded due to the confusion it has created and still creates. Those who read the tool tip and do not come to forms will never understand how it really works.

Tool tip for assaults reads
Assault to deal devistating damage on enemy defenses. Use this mission to efficently destroy enemy defenses. You lose 5% of your strike force, enemy loses 4%

We now have been told by administration the attacking force loses are based on the defending force losses + 25% and adjusted for tech levels. The present tip is misleading in the fact your losses as an attacker have nothing to do with the size of your attack force. Attackers losses are based soley on the defenders losses.
what you just wrote in that last paragraph is total hogwash, sorry but there's no other way for me to put it
losses for both sides are and always were a base % modified by power ratio, loses to one side are irrelevant to losses for the other

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:40 am

Admin wrote:
Special Agent 47 wrote:While it is not a typo I think it needs to be reworded due to the confusion it has created and still creates. Those who read the tool tip and do not come to forms will never understand how it really works.

Tool tip for assaults reads
Assault to deal devistating damage on enemy defenses. Use this mission to efficently destroy enemy defenses. You lose 5% of your strike force, enemy loses 4%

We now have been told by administration the attacking force loses are based on the defending force losses + 25% and adjusted for tech levels. The present tip is misleading in the fact your losses as an attacker have nothing to do with the size of your attack force. Attackers losses are based soley on the defenders losses.
what you just wrote in that last paragraph is total hogwash, sorry but there's no other way for me to put it
losses for both sides are and always were a base % modified by power ratio, loses to one side are irrelevant to losses for the other

So what you are saying is that Keinutnai/kenzu has been spouting this hogwash, as all SA47 has done is repeat what Keinutnai/kenzu has said several times over. ( I do not have time now, but if you insist I shall spend some time tomorrow going through past posts & show you where Keinutnai/kenzu said it first)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Gamniac on Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:44 am

In this topic: http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2784p270-tmi-against-world-republic
Kenzu posted the following (among other posts):
Keinutnai wrote:
My example is supposed to show that attacking player will NOT lose 5% of the units he sends, but loses a number based on the number of units that the defenders loses.

(...)

Attacker doesn't lose 5%, but defender does lose around 4%.
Attacker loses same action as defender *1.25 if strategies are normal on both sides.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 28
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Admin on Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:10 pm

Spoiler:
in assault missions attacker almost never loses exactly 5%, so that part is true. You'd lose 5% if both powers would be identical, that never happens

as to the losses, it's been discussed ad infinitum, here's 1 staightforward example
http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2114-looking-for-help-figuring-losses

Unlike in RA, in main, your losses have not a single thing to do with enemy losses. They will correlate though because they are calculated using many same values (power, techs, weapons, etc.)
So apparently all of you have a problem in understanding the difference between correlation and causation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

soldiers sent by P1 x % loss x power ratio = A
soldiers sent by P2 x % loss / power ratio = B

B does NOT affect what A will result in. You can clearly see in that equation that A is not calculated off B at all, neither is B calculated off A at all.
But power ratio (weapons used, techs, amoutn of armed soldiers) that will affect what value A will end up as will also affect what B will be equal to.
This was my original reply

My current version is now this:
The more I think about it, technically what kenzu said in that first sentence is true (the second sentence is obviously false to anyone who's ever massed so can be ignored), it's an explanation of losses for the non-math-capable and those chosing to ignore every single thread where losses have been actually discussed.

You build a bigger strike vs a certain def, you kill more defenders and lose more attackers but the ratio of losses stays the same.
Theoretically, since you see more defender losses as well as attacker losses, you could think that higher defender cause higher attacker losses, but that's not how the real calculations actually work


Last edited by Admin on Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Special Agent 47 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:02 pm

OK, so,,,,,,,,,,,,

I'll come back later after figuring this out a bit more.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

losses

Post by Gamniac on Wed Oct 10, 2012 7:59 pm

Admin wrote: (...)
The more I think about it, technically what kenzu said in that first sentence is true (the second sentence is obviously false to anyone who's ever massed so can be ignored) (...)

After the second sentence, there was a bunch of stuff about how tech levels (and presumably weapon strength) affect the 1.25 ratio.
It's been a running debate for a while.
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 28
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Special Agent 47 on Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:35 am

Gamniac wrote:In this topic: http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2784p270-tmi-against-world-republic
Kenzu posted the following (among other posts):
Keinutnai wrote:
My example is supposed to show that attacking player will NOT lose 5% of the units he sends, but loses a number based on the number of units that the defenders loses.

(...)

Attacker doesn't lose 5%, but defender does lose around 4%.
Attacker loses same action as defender *1.25 if strategies are normal on both sides.

This is what I was going by. You are correct Admin in saying you never had a part in this convo, so it was stupid of us to believe anything Kenzu said. Just understand this is where the line of thinking came from. We did ask for a reply from you, but only got anything from Kenzu,,,, and yes we should have ignored it as you have said many times before.
avatar
Special Agent 47
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : http://www.aderanwars.com/stats.php?id=427
Alliance : [ The_Marauders ]
Number of posts : 556
Location : Preparing for my next mission.
Registration date : 2009-08-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Admin on Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:54 pm

and why did none of you open the OTHER threads where losses have ALREADY been discussed in detail?

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Gamniac on Thu Oct 11, 2012 3:43 pm

There were other threads?
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 28
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Keinutnai on Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:36 pm

Admin, why dont you just give the guys the formula on how losses are calculated with a list of examples so everyone knows how it works. Your replies are not very straightforward.

I believe my replies are currently the closest to the truth, since they work on the assaults I make.

My example is supposed to show that attacking player will NOT lose 5% of the units he sends, but loses a number based on the number of units that the defenders loses.=> Is true

Attacker doesn't lose 5%, but defender does lose around 4%. => It should be added that the defender does lose around 4% of units IF strike action is at least as high as defense action. If strike action is only a half of defense action, but the techs are the same as in previous example, then the defender will lose 2% and attacker will lose the same ratio as in previous example. The amount of soldiers both sides lose in a mission where attacker has only one half of defense action of the enemy, is a half of what it would have been, if the strike action was doubled (equal to defense action)

Attacker loses same action as defender *1.25 if strategies are normal on both sides. => I believe this is true, because if someone has say 100 billion defense action, it will take attackers about 125 billion action to take it down. I speak from experience. This means that if your techs are the same, then attacker will lose 25% more soldiers, but if attackers techs are 25% better, then both sides lose the same number of soldiers.

@admin
Don't say it's not true, explain why it is not true, because it seems to be always true when we do assaults.
avatar
Keinutnai
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

Alliance : World Republic
Number of posts : 663
Registration date : 2011-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Admin on Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:48 pm

Keinutnai wrote:Admin, why dont you just give the guys the formula on how losses are calculated with a list of examples so everyone knows how it works. Your replies are not very straightforward.
They are as straighforward as they can get
Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side
Can't be hard to punch in the numbers into a calculator, last time I checked every computer has one by default
Keinutnai wrote:@admin
Don't say it's not true, explain why it is not true, because it seems to be always true when we do assaults.
@ kenzu: I have explained why it is not true
your conclusion is true for some cases (for example same techs and same power)
the method to reach that conclusion however is wrong
which means with the wrong method, you will reach wrong conclusions in all other cases (every case where there is a tech or power difference)

as proven by the losses formula, attacker losses are not calculated from defenders losses
neither is it true that power loss is same

If A is sometimes B it doesn't mean that B is necessarily always A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

Gamniac wrote:There were other threads?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aaderanwars.forumotion.com+losses

plenty of other threads

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2114-looking-for-help-figuring-losses

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2843-assault-mission-losses

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2335-losses

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t1881-attack-losses

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:10 pm

@admin-I am going to attempt to say a few things here & I am having a hard time trying to find the correct words to use to try to get my point across to you, so understand that I do not mean anything I say as a personal attack on you or the game, this is me trying to understand you & your train of thought so I apologize in advance if anything I say comes across as negative towards you or this game. having said this, I have a few comments on what is below...

1) you just edited this post & it doesn't say that you did at the bottom... interesting.

Admin wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Admin, why dont you just give the guys the formula on how losses are calculated with a list of examples so everyone knows how it works. Your replies are not very straightforward.
They are as straighforward as they can get
Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side
I know that I am math illiterate, & I thought I had made that clear to you, having said that, your above quote is Greek to me... what is (def/att)^0.5? can you just explain the whole equation please?
Can't be hard to punch in the numbers into a calculator, last time I checked every computer has one by default
Keinutnai wrote:@admin
Don't say it's not true, explain why it is not true, because it seems to be always true when we do assaults.
@ kenzu: I have explained why it is not true
your conclusion is true for some cases (for example same techs and same power)
the method to reach that conclusion however is wrong
which means with the wrong method, you will reach wrong conclusions in all other cases (every case where there is a tech or power difference)

as proven by the losses formula, attacker losses are not calculated from defenders losses
neither is it true that power loss is same

If A is sometimes B it doesn't mean that B is necessarily always A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)

Gamniac wrote:There were other threads?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aaderanwars.forumotion.com+losses
this is a bad link I think, all it does is take me to google

plenty of other threads

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2114-looking-for-help-figuring-losses
this is an inconclusive thread as far as I can tell as the only useful info contained within is this...
Admin wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

destruction has 2 steps
attack vs def (1.5% loss of attacker, 0.75% loss of defender)
def/att ^ 0.5 = adjustment
supers x .015 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .0075 / adjustment = losses on defender side
then remaining attack power vs defender attack *0.7 * realm alert modifier (see updates page couple months back)
defatt/(att-def)^0.5 = adjustment
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender_strike side

hunt assassins and invasion works as assault except defense power is increased by assassin action or miner/worker power (given a few posts above)
if you have less power than defense then you kill proportionately less targeted units, attack/defense losses follows the standard formula
& it is never really clear in this thread that this is definitive or not. also it is not easily understood by those of us who are math illiterate.

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2843-assault-mission-losses
this thread contains no useful information that I can find. sorry

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2335-losses
again, another inconclusive thread, no definitive information contained within. basically just an arguement with mystake

http://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t1881-attack-losses
again another inconclusive thread, nothing definitive, seems to be concerning RA as best as I can figure out.


Btw, I spent quite a bit of time going back thru & rereading each post in all the above mentioned threads.
in conclusion, some of what you have put forth above is quite old & there may have been changes to some of it since it was posted. as such do you think that you could make 1 post that contains all the formulas for all the losses for all the different attacks & then sticky it for ease of finding for future reference? also you may go ahead & use your math formulas if you like as I will be searching for someone to assist me in understanding them.
If you cannot make 1 single post containing all the pertinent info, then can this post be sticky'd for ease of finding for future reference?

Also can I get your reasoning on this comment that Keinutnai/kenzu made, as it is Imo a gamekiller. (you can put this part is a different thread if you wish).

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

also can I get a bit of a better explanation on the "the attacker loses 25% more that the defender" statement as I get the feeling that I am missing something as I have soooooo many examples whereas the attacker loses either more or less that the defender & not always 25%. (again this is most probably due to me being either math illiterate, or me misunderstanding exactly where/what the 25% more losses is calc'd in.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Nomad on Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:36 pm

(def/att)^0.5 I have no idea what ^ means either, the rest I get


I do agree with Kong that many past threads have left questions due to the way it is presented (in the form of an argument), That and with Kenzu disputing you.

As for "the method to reach that conclusion however is wrong" that part does make perfect sense to me. It clears up alot of things and means Kenzu was right, but also wrong, just unintentionally.

@ Kong.....

I can't answer for admin, but I personally feel its a necessary evil. Defenses by nature are stronger then attacks (with the exception of utter annihilation,,, but you don't drop an A-Bomb on a bank if you want to rob it). If attack and defense were completely equal then an attack needs only to identically match you to defeat you every time. He has a built in advantage, he is online 100% of the time were a defense is rarely if ever on. Attackers can be training from the start meaning if attacks were started and remain = then on turn change the strike force becomes stronger from 1 round of training Just how I see it anyway.


found this on wiki
Spoiler:
Surrogate symbol for superscript and exponentiation

In mathematics, the caret can signify exponentiation (3^5 for 3^5), where the usual superscript is not readily usable (as on some graphing calculators). The caret is also now used to indicate a superscript in TeX typesetting. As Isaac Asimov described it in his 1974 "Skewered" essay (on Skewes' number), "I make the exponent a figure of normal size and it is as though it is being held up by a lever, and its added weight when its size grows bends the lever down."[11] The use of the caret for exponentiation can be traced back to ALGOL 60,[citation needed] which expressed the exponentiation operator as an upward-pointing arrow, intended to evoke the superscript notation common in mathematics. The upward-pointing arrow is now used as a form of iterated exponentiation in Knuth's up-arrow notation.


full artical below

Caret
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the spacing character that resembles a chevron. For use as a diacritic or "hat" modifying another character (as in â), see Circumflex. For other uses of the word "caret", see Caret (disambiguation).
^
ASCII caret
(circumflex accent)
‸  ⁁  ^
Unicode caret  Caret insertion point  Fullwidth circumflex accent

Punctuation
apostrophe ( ’ ' )
brackets ( [ ], ( ), { }, ⟨ ⟩ )
colon ( : )
comma ( , ، 、 )
dash ( ‒, –, —, ― )
ellipsis ( …, ..., . . . )
exclamation mark ( ! )
full stop/period ( . )
guillemets ( « » )
hyphen ( ‐ )
hyphen-minus ( - )
question mark ( ? )
quotation marks ( ‘ ’, “ ”, ' ', " " )
semicolon ( ; )
slash/stroke/solidus ( /, ⁄ )
Word dividers
interpunct ( · )
space ( ) ( ) ( )
General typography
ampersand ( & )
asterisk ( * )
at sign ( @ )
backslash ( \ )
bullet ( • )
caret ( ^ )
dagger ( †, ‡ )
degree ( ° )
ditto mark ( 〃 )
inverted exclamation mark ( ¡ )
inverted question mark ( ¿ )
number sign/pound/hash ( # )
numero sign ( № )
obelus ( ÷ )
ordinal indicator ( º, ª )
percent, per mil ( %, ‰ )
basis point ( ‱ )
pilcrow ( ¶ )
prime ( ′, ″, ‴ )
section sign ( § )
tilde ( ~ )
underscore/understrike ( _ )
vertical bar/broken bar/pipe ( ¦, | )
Intellectual property
copyright symbol ( © )
registered trademark ( ® )
service mark ( ℠ )
sound recording copyright ( ℗ )
trademark ( ™ )
Currency
currency (generic) ( ¤ )
currency (specific)
( ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ ₠ $ ₫ ৳ ₯ € ƒ ₣ ₲ ₴ ₭ ℳ ₥ ₦ ₧ ₱ ₰ £ ₹ ₨ ₪ ₸ ₮ ₩ ¥ ៛ )
Uncommon typography
asterism ( ⁂ )
index/fist ( ☞ )
interrobang ( ‽ )
irony punctuation ( ؟ )
lozenge ( ◊ )
reference mark ( ※ )
tee ( ⊤ )
up tack ( ⊥ )
therefore sign ( ∴ )
because sign ( ∵ )
tie ( ⁀ )
Related
diacritical marks
whitespace characters
non-English quotation style ( « », „ ” )
In other scripts
Chinese punctuation
Hebrew punctuation
Japanese punctuation
Korean punctuation
Wikipedia book Book · Category Category · Portal Portal
This template:

view
talk
edit

Caret (play /ˈkærət/) is an inverted V-shaped grapheme. Specifically, caret commonly refers to the spacing character ^ in ASCII (at code point 5Ehex) and other character sets that may also be called a hat, control, uparrow, or less frequently chevron, xor sign, to the [power of], fang, shark (or shark-fin), pointer (in Pascal),[1] or wedge. Officially, this character is referred to as circumflex accent in both ASCII[2] and Unicode[3] terminology (because of its historical use in overstrike), whereas caret refers to a similar but lowered Unicode character: U+2038 ‸ caret (HTML: ‸). Additionally, there is another lowered variant with a stroke: U+2041 ⁁ caret insertion point (HTML: ⁁).[4]

The caret and circumflex are not to be confused with other chevron-shaped characters, such as U+028C ʌ latin letter turned v or U+2227 ∧ logical and, which may occasionally be called carets too.[5][6]
Contents

1 Origins
1.1 Proofreading mark
1.2 Circumflex accent
2 Other uses
2.1 Programming languages
2.2 Surrogate symbol for superscript and exponentiation
2.3 Escape character
2.4 Ordinal indicator
2.5 Signature tag
2.6 Upwards-pointing arrow
3 See also
4 References

Origins
Proofreading mark

The caret was originally used, and continues to be, in handwritten form as a proofreading mark to indicate where a punctuation mark, word, or phrase should be inserted in a document.[7] The term comes from the Latin caret, "it lacks", from carēre, "to lack; to be separated from; to be free from".[8] The caret symbol is written below the line of text for a line-level punctuation mark such as a comma, or above for a higher character such as an apostrophe; the material to be inserted may be placed inside the caret, in the margin, or above the line.
Circumflex accent

A raised variant of the symbol can be found on some typewriters, where it is used to denote a circumflex in some languages, such as French and Portuguese. It is typically a dead key, which does not cause the carriage to advance and thus allows the following letter to strike the same spot (below the circumflex) on the paper.

As regards computer systems, the original 1963 version of the ASCII standard reserved the code point 5Ehex for an up-arrow (↑). However, the 1965 ECMA-6 standard replaced the up-arrow with a circumflex (^), which was applicable as a diacritic as well, and two years later, the second revision of ASCII followed suit.[9] As the early mainframes and minicomputers largely used teleprinters as output devices, it was possible to print the circumflex above a letter when needed. With the proliferation of monitors, however, this was seen insufficient, and precomposed characters, with the diacritic included, were instead introduced into appended character sets, such as Latin-1. The original circumflex character was left for other purposes, and as it did not need to fit above a letter anymore, it became larger in appearance.[10]
Other uses
Programming languages

The caret has many uses in programming languages. It can signify exponentiation, the bitwise XOR operator, string concatenation, and control characters in caret notation, among other uses. In regular expressions, the caret is used to mark the beginning of a string, or the beginning of a line within that string (depending on the regular expression dialect and specified options); if it begins a character class, it indicates that the inverse of the class is to be matched. Pascal uses the caret when dereferencing pointers.

In C++/CLI the only type of pointer is C++ pointer, and the .NET reference types are accessed through a "handle", with the new syntax ClassName^ instead of ClassName*. This new construct is especially helpful when managed and standard C++ code is mixed; it clarifies which objects are under .NET automatic garbage collection and which objects the programmer must remember to explicitly destroy. In development for Apple's Mac OS X and iOS, carets are used to create blocks, and to denote block types.
Surrogate symbol for superscript and exponentiation

In mathematics, the caret can signify exponentiation (3^5 for 3^5), where the usual superscript is not readily usable (as on some graphing calculators). The caret is also now used to indicate a superscript in TeX typesetting. As Isaac Asimov described it in his 1974 "Skewered" essay (on Skewes' number), "I make the exponent a figure of normal size and it is as though it is being held up by a lever, and its added weight when its size grows bends the lever down."[11] The use of the caret for exponentiation can be traced back to ALGOL 60,[citation needed] which expressed the exponentiation operator as an upward-pointing arrow, intended to evoke the superscript notation common in mathematics. The upward-pointing arrow is now used as a form of iterated exponentiation in Knuth's up-arrow notation.
Escape character

The command-line interpreter, cmd.exe, of Windows family of operating systems uses the caret to escape reserved characters.
Ordinal indicator

In Italian, the caret is sometimes used in a similar manner to the ordinal indicator, most noticeably on tickets from Trenitalia, the primary operator of trains within Italy, and Rome's ATAC public transit system. On Trenitalia tickets, the travel class is often written as 1^ or 2^, meaning first class or second class respectively. This is due to the lack of the ordinal indicator (-o) used in Italian in the ASCII set.
Signature tag

In social network services such as Twitter, a caret placed before a word is used to tag that word as an individual's signature within a group account. This differentiates an individual's contribution from a group-authored contribution.
Upwards-pointing arrow

In internet forums, social networking sites such as Facebook, or in online chats, a caret or a series of carets may be used beneath or after the post of one user by another user. In this usage, the caret ^ represents an upwards-pointing arrow meaning for readers, posters or the original poster (OP) to see the above line/post,[12] and in addition to the arrow usage, can also mean that the user who posted the ^ agrees with or quotes the above post (without typing out what the post said).
See also

Cursor (computers)
Caron
Circumflex
Lambda
Logical and
Turned v

References

^ "ASCII". The Jargon File 4.2.0. Arjan de Mes. 31 January 2000. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
^ "AT & T's Baudot to ASCII". Stephen Williamson Computing Services. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
^ Unicode (1991–2012). "C0 Controls and Basic Latin". Retrieved 19 August 2012.
^ Unicode (1991–2012). "General Punctuation". Retrieved 19 August 2012.
^ Unicode (1991–2012). "IPA Extensions". Retrieved 20 August 2012.
^ Eric W. Weisstein. "Caret". MathWorld. Wolfram. Retrieved 20 August 2012.
^ MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7 ed.). New York: Modern Language Association. 2009. p. 121. ISBN 978-1-60329-024-1.
^ "Caret". Merriam-Webster. Retrieved 19 August 2012.
^ Tom Jennings. "ASCII: American Standard Code for Information Infiltration". Retrieved 14 September 2010.
^ Jukka K. Korpela (18 January 2010). "Kirjainten tarinoita" (in Finnish). pp. 132–133. Retrieved 14 September 2010.
^ Isaac Asimov (1974), "Skewered", Of Matters Great and Small, Doubleday, ISBN 978-0385022255
^ "What is Caret?". Computer Hope. Retrieved 14 August 2012.

avatar
Nomad
Alliance Leader
Alliance Leader

ID : WORD OF THE DAY
Hipocracy
hy·poc·ri·sy
Show Spelled[hi-pok-ruh-see]
–noun, plural -sies.

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
2. the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one's real character or actual behavior, esp the pretense of virtue and piety
3. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Number of posts : 4259
Location : Everywhere and nowhere at all.
Registration date : 2008-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 4:11 pm

Nomad wrote:
@ Kong.....

I can't answer for admin, but I personally feel its a necessary evil. Defenses by nature are stronger then attacks (with the exception of utter annihilation,,, but you don't drop an A-Bomb on a bank if you want to rob it). If attack and defense were completely equal then an attack needs only to identically match you to defeat you every time. He has a built in advantage, he is online 100% of the time were a defense is rarely if ever on. Attackers can be training from the start meaning if attacks were started and remain = then on turn change the strike force becomes stronger from 1 round of training Just how I see it anyway.

again not trying to argue here, but what I am understanding (so far) is...

1) defender loses 4% when attacked, attacker loses 5% when attacking.
2) attacker will lose 25% more than defender, (when at equal techs).
3) 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech. (this apparently is equal techs?)

is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what I am not understanding. (if it has been explained before, point me to it please?)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by fivel on Fri Oct 12, 2012 7:34 pm

(def/att)^0.5 means:
you make this easy calc: def / att
after that you take your result and made another calc using "^0.5"

now idk what is the word used in english for "^" but if you take it from my example you might get it: lets say we have 1^3=1*1*1, or 10^5=10*10*10*10*10

but to make it more clear (i think this is more clear) (def/att)^0.5 is the square root of (def/att)

i think the forumula is not that difficult, if you know some excel you can make it work very easy

EDIT: i made a test and this formula is very accurate, the only thing that make's a difference is the fact that strike and defence action fluctuate during an attack (are not exact the one from a spy report and the one from the base page, but i think you knew that)
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Gamniac on Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:16 pm

fivel wrote:(def/att)^0.5 means:
you make this easy calc: def / att
after that you take your result and made another calc using "^0.5"

now idk what is the word used in english for "^" but if you take it from my example you might get it: lets say we have 1^3=1*1*1, or 10^5=10*10*10*10*10

but to make it more clear (i think this is more clear) (def/att)^0.5 is the square root of (def/att)

i think the forumula is not that difficult, if you know some excel you can make it work very easy

EDIT: i made a test and this formula is very accurate, the only thing that make's a difference is the fact that strike and defence action fluctuate during an attack (are not exact the one from a spy report and the one from the base page, but i think you knew that)

The word you're looking for is in fact a phrase:
"10^5" is pronounced as "10 to the power of 5".
Admin probably wrote it the way he did because there's no "square root" key on a keyboard (unless there is and I haven't found it yet).
The rest is as accurate as can be.

(I always forget that "^0.5" is the same as a square root, so I almost explained this as (def/att)*(0.5*def/0.5*att). That only would've complicated matters a bit much.)
avatar
Gamniac
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 5094
Alliance : World Republic
Age : 28
Number of posts : 260
Location : At the bottom of a crater. I always wanted an underground base!
Registration date : 2012-04-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by fivel on Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:35 pm

i'm glad it's clear for you now Razz
and i wanted to use the phrase you used (to the power of, this was a word by word translation for me but it didnt sounded right for me Razz)

EDIT: i think my answer was for kingkongfan1 Smile
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:26 pm

Gamniac wrote:
fivel wrote:(def/att)^0.5 means:
you make this easy calc: def / att
after that you take your result and made another calc using "^0.5"

now idk what is the word used in english for "^" but if you take it from my example you might get it: lets say we have 1^3=1*1*1, or 10^5=10*10*10*10*10

but to make it more clear (i think this is more clear) (def/att)^0.5 is the square root of (def/att)

i think the forumula is not that difficult, if you know some excel you can make it work very easy

EDIT: i made a test and this formula is very accurate, the only thing that make's a difference is the fact that strike and defence action fluctuate during an attack (are not exact the one from a spy report and the one from the base page, but i think you knew that)

The word you're looking for is in fact a phrase:
"10^5" is pronounced as "10 to the power of 5".
Admin probably wrote it the way he did because there's no "square root" key on a keyboard (unless there is and I haven't found it yet).
The rest is as accurate as can be.

(I always forget that "^0.5" is the same as a square root, so I almost explained this as (def/att)*(0.5*def/0.5*att). That only would've complicated matters a bit much.)

thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.


avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by fivel on Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:54 pm

the next step is to calculate the "adjustment"
and after that you can calculate your loses and his loses
but you need to take into consideration the defender strategy (Normal, Counter Offensive or Fortified) to use the best way to attack

if you need, i made an rough excel calc (it's quite accurate), so if you want i could send it to you, for more info send me a PM with the method you want me to send it to you
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:04 pm

fivel wrote:the next step is to calculate the "adjustment"
and after that you can calculate your loses and his loses
but you need to take into consideration the defender strategy (Normal, Counter Offensive or Fortified) to use the best way to attack

if you need, i made an rough excel calc (it's quite accurate), so if you want i could send it to you, for more info send me a PM with the method you want me to send it to you

that is my other weakness, what is "excel" how does work? what do you mean by "send me a PM with the method you want me to send it to you"? what methods are there? sorry.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by fivel on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:09 pm

lol,
1. Microsoft excel is a program from the Microsoft Office pack.
2. the method you want me to send it, means how do you want me to send it to you: email, MSN, or any other method you know to send data

but the fact is you dont need to calculate the loses from 1 assault because you can always do an actual ASSAULT MISSION and find out if you lose more then the defender or not (this way you dont waist time to enter the fallowing numbers: your SA, the target's DA, the number of your Strike Supers and the numbers of the defender Defence Supers)
avatar
fivel
Aderan Miner
Aderan Miner

ID : 388
Alliance : Mujengan
Number of posts : 236
Registration date : 2012-04-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:07 pm

fivel wrote:lol,
1. Microsoft excel is a program from the Microsoft Office pack.
2. the method you want me to send it, means how do you want me to send it to you: email, MSN, or any other method you know to send data

but the fact is you dont need to calculate the loses from 1 assault because you can always do an actual ASSAULT MISSION and find out if you lose more then the defender or not (this way you dont waist time to enter the fallowing numbers: your SA, the target's DA, the number of your Strike Supers and the numbers of the defender Defence Supers)

Thank you for your assistance.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Admin on Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:54 pm

First time anyone has ever written that they have no clue what "^" means mathematically
Plus I'm still not sure if you weren't aware of those threads or you simply didn't think of posting into them, cos you know, that's the point of a forum, to post into threads.

kingkongfan1 wrote:thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.


Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side
The adjustment only works until whichever side is 5 times stronger than the weaker side
After that it will ignore any further change increase in the stronger side and losses will remain identical to the situation where the stronger power is only 5 times larger

If defender power keeps increasing:
Losses on both sides will be identical on each attack (and by identical I mean att loss on mission 1 is equal to att loss on mission 2 and same with defender, NOT that att loss on mission 1 is equal to def loss on mission 1) if you make an attack with a 20 bil strike vs a 100 bil defense or with a 20 bil strike vs a 200 bil defense defender always loses zero units

If strike keeps increasing it works out to the same thing:
100 bil strike vs 20 bil def will have exactly identical losses to a 200 bil strike vs a 20 bil def in the same way as a higher defense will leave losses unchanged (att loss mission 1 = att loss mission 2, def loss mission 1 = def loss mission 2)


Now if you observe actually anything different from this, then it's a bug and you can report it.

_________________
Disclaimer:
1) You are always welcome to correct my assumptions and understanding of a situation but please do so in a logical and sound manner.
2) If I ask stupid questions it's only because sometimes people aren't smart enough to ask these themselves.
3) Being condescending to some people helps me keep my sanity when I am forced to interact with them.

I hate PR, will never engage in it and will rain destruction on all who refuse to use their brains to think before they speak.
avatar
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4363
Registration date : 2008-08-18

View user profile http://www.aderanwars.com

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:33 am

Admin wrote:First time anyone has ever written that they have no clue what "^" means mathematically
Plus I'm still not sure if you weren't aware of those threads or you simply didn't think of posting into them, cos you know, that's the point of a forum, to post into threads.
I really do appreciate your information & assistance here, but one of the first posts I ever made was to state that math wasn't my "thing". to clarify I shall spell it out further. I understand addition (A number plus [+] a second number), I understand subtraction (a number minus [-] a second number), I understand simple multiplication (a number times [X] a second number), & I have a pretty good grasp on long division (a number divided [no symbol on my computer for the symbol I know] into a second number)... I was ok with geometry but have forgotten it due to never using it after high school. I made it thru sophomore algebra with a D- average.( I got the answers right but couldn't work the problems the way they insisted I had to). anything more than the above mentioned or especially when you throw letters of the alphabet & weird symbols into the mix then I am completely lost. hope this explains things for anyone interested. the symbols I have learned in the last few years are as follows...[* = multiply],[/= divide],[~ = approximately], & maybe a few others I cannot think of atm. Also, yes I did see the threads, but it's kinda hard to make a post in a thread when you have no clue what is being discussed, or have any useful information to add. I read everything in these forums with the exception of the RA portion as I do not play RA.

kingkongfan1 wrote:thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.


Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers xwhat is a "super"? also, what is the x? [Times? or the same as *] .05 x[is this times or * as well?] adjustmentadjustment is the 0.5 correct? = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side
The adjustment only works until whichever side is 5 times stronger than the weaker side
After that it will ignore any further change increase in the stronger side and losses will remain identical to the situation where the stronger power is only 5 times larger

If defender power keeps increasing:
Losses on both sides will be identical on each attack (and by identical I mean att loss on mission 1 is equal to att loss on mission 2 and same with defender, NOT that att loss on mission 1 is equal to def loss on mission 1) if you make an attack with a 20 bil strike vs a 100 bil defense or with a 20 bil strike vs a 200 bil defense defender always loses zero units
This is fairly simple to understand.

If strike keeps increasing it works out to the same thing:
100 bil strike vs 20 bil def will have exactly identical losses to a 200 bil strike vs a 20 bil def in the same way as a higher defense will leave losses unchanged (att loss mission 1 = att loss mission 2, def loss mission 1 = def loss mission 2)
so is this.


Now if you observe actually anything different from this, then it's a bug and you can report it.

Now if you will address the following then I'll be a bit closer to understanding even more of the game. a true/ false & a simple explanation will suffice.( example = #3 is true, because I choose it to be that way)...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
1) defender loses 4% when attacked, attacker loses 5% when attacking.
as best as I can tell you just showed this one to be true from your example above.
2) attacker will lose 25% more than defender, (when at equal techs).
I always thought that this meant that the attacker lost 25% more than the defender,(example- the defender loses 100 defense soldiers, & the attacker would lose 125 attack soldiers. I have made enough assaults to know that this is not the case, so please answer this one.
3) 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225%[240%?] defense tech. (I misquoted my last post concerning this. keinutnai/kenzu has stated #2 multiple times, but then states this & I believed he changed it to 240%). I am just trying to understand what I am being told.

is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what I am not understanding. (if it has been explained before, point me to it please?)

thank you for your attention in this matter.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 49
Number of posts : 1387
Location : Skull Island
Registration date : 2010-01-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum