losses

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: losses

Post by fivel on Sun Oct 14, 2012 11:40 am

kingkongfan1 wrote:
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] (you already wrote the symbol and it's " / " )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"? (there are attack soldiers and defence soldiers, before there were also attack supers and defence supers, so, many players refer to soldiers as supers, in this case admin is refering to attack soldiers)also, what is the x? (you are right, "x" is the same as " * ") [Times? or the same as *] .05 x[is this times or * as well?] adjustmentadjustment is the 0.5 correct? (adjustment is not 0.5, it's (def/att)^0.5)= 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.(this is not the case because you didn't took into consideration techs, and this is were ADJUSTMENT came into play)
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
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:45 pm

Spoiler:
fivel wrote:
kingkongfan1 wrote:
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] (you already wrote the symbol and it's " / " )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"? (there are attack soldiers and defence soldiers, before there were also attack supers and defence supers, so, many players refer to soldiers as supers, in this case admin is refering to attack soldiers)also, what is the x? (you are right, "x" is the same as " * ") [Times? or the same as *] .05 x[is this times or * as well?] adjustmentadjustment is the 0.5 correct? (adjustment is not 0.5, it's (def/att)^0.5)= 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.(this is not the case because you didn't took into consideration techs, and this is were ADJUSTMENT came into play)
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.

Thank you for the above information, it is very helpful & I apologize for being a difficult student. Also the sign we were taught in school for "divide" was not "/", it was a horizontal line with two dots, one above the line the other below the line.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:23 pm

there are more than 1 signs in math,
for "divide" you can use " : " or " / " or the one you said
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 Nomad on Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:49 pm

It looked something like this

o
------
o

But all on the same line and the dotted line is solid.
Edit
fivel wrote:there are more than 1 signs in math,
for "divide" you can use " : " or " / " or the one you said
I never knew that.


Let me type out the exact actions and tell me if I am doing it correctly
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 take their DA and divided it by ma AA then press the square root button (it changes the number on the screen), then press 0.5 and press the = sign? Is that correct?

Then I take my attacker count multiply it by .05, then multiply that number by the number found in step one called "the adjustment". Is that correct?

From there is is skewed just a bit by the "variance" thats in the game naturally, like 5% or something right?
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:31 pm

@fivel- again something new is learned, thanks, I like nomad never knew that.

Admin wrote:
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

here is my pathetic attempt at working this equation (the defense action & Attack action are from randomly op'd players...)

(114,622,500,000/244,191,309,810) at this point i hit the "sqrt" button & 0.5 & get 229,245,000,000. then I go to,,,

4,548,833 x .05 x 229,245,000,000 = 52,139,861,054,250,000 (attackers losses)
2,500,000 x .04 / 229,245,000,000 = 4.362145******* (defenders losses)

I know this is not right, so if someone could point out what I did wrong, it would be greatly appreciated....

As for this...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
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.

I figured it out, & for those of you who took the time to help me understand this... "Thank You".
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 4:44 pm

omg, you really are hard students Razz

i'll give you an example:
you have a guy with 100,000,000,000 Defence Action
you have 120,000,000,000 Strike (or Attack) Action
you divide 100 bil DA to 120 SA and than press sqrt button
the result will be: 0.913 ( this IS THE ADJUSTMENT you forget about the 0.5)

after this you go and find out your loses: let's say you have that SA with 3mil ATACK soldiers, so the formula will be:
4,000,000 * 0.05 * 0.913 = 136,950 ATACK SOLDIERS LOST BY YOU (the attacker)

and the defender let's say will have that DA with 2 mil defence soldiers, so the formula will be:
2,000,000 * 0.04 / 0.913 = 87,623 defence SOLDIERS LOST BY THE DEFENDER
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 Nomad on Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:58 pm

Thanks Fivel. Been trying to tell you I was mathmatically inept but you wouldnt believe me LOL
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 Manleva on Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:22 pm

To write it in English it would look like the following.

Adjustment equals the Square Root of (Defensive Action divided by Strike Action) OR (Defensive Action divided by Strike action) to the power of 0.5
The part in brackets is calculated first.

Attackers losses equal 5% of Attackers Strike Units multiplied by the Adjustment
Defenders losses equal 4% of the defenders Defense Units divided by the Adjustment

A quick calc I did yesterday against a well known player showed that if I did and assault mission against the player I would actually loose 2% of my strike units while he would loose 9% of his defense units. The adjustment resulted in a lowering of my losses by 3% and an increase in his losses of 5%

Of course the formula posted by Admin is not fully correct as there is also the adjustment for Fighting Strategy that would need to be included. The formula would only be accurate if both Attacker and Defender were using Normal Strategy
avatar
Manleva
Aderan Assassin
Aderan Assassin

ID : 999
Alliance : TMI
Age : 59
Number of posts : 659
Location : New Zealand
Registration date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: losses

Post by kingkongfan1 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 7:33 pm

Manleva wrote:To write it in English it would look like the following.

Adjustment equals the Square Root of (Defensive Action divided by Strike Action) OR (Defensive Action divided by Strike action) to the power of 0.5
The part in brackets is calculated first.

Attackers losses equal 5% of Attackers Strike Units multiplied by the Adjustment
Defenders losses equal 4% of the defenders Defense Units divided by the Adjustment

A quick calc I did yesterday against a well known player showed that if I did and assault mission against the player I would actually loose 2% of my strike units while he would loose 9% of his defense units. The adjustment resulted in a lowering of my losses by 3% and an increase in his losses of 5%

Of course the formula posted by Admin is not fully correct as there is also the adjustment for Fighting Strategy that would need to be included. The formula would only be accurate if both Attacker and Defender were using Normal Strategy
I had thought about this, & was going to ask, thank you for helping

Nomad wrote:Thanks Fivel. Been trying to tell you I was mathmatically inept but you wouldnt believe me LOL
the same goes for me as well, lol...

fivel wrote:omg, you really are hard students Razz

i'll give you an example:
you have a guy with 100,000,000,000 Defence Action
you have 120,000,000,000 Strike (or Attack) Action
you divide 100 bil DA to 120 SA and than press sqrt button
the result will be: 0.913 ( this IS THE ADJUSTMENT you forget about the 0.5)

after this you go and find out your loses: let's say you have that SA with 3mil ATACK soldiers, so the formula will be:
4,000,000 * 0.05 * 0.913 = 136,950 ATACK SOLDIERS LOST BY YOU (the attacker)

and the defender let's say will have that DA with 2 mil defence soldiers, so the formula will be:
2,000,000 * 0.04 / 0.913 = 87,623 defence SOLDIERS LOST BY THE DEFENDER

WAIT!!! I think the lights just went on! let me try this...

(114,622,500,000 / 8,700,010,500)= 13.17^ = 3.6
200,000 * 0.05 * 3.6 = 36,000 (~ attackers losses)
2,500,000 * 0.04 / 3.6 = 27,777 (~ defenders losses)

did I get it right? yes I understand this will not be the exact losses as per that which manleva explained, & I think that the random %age also needs to be figured in as well, but this should give a "ballpark" figure concerning losses. I do hope I got this correct.
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:08 pm

YOUR formulas are correct


BUT,... IF your are trying to kill something from a defence of 114 bil with a strike of only 8.7bil you will do no damage BECAUSE the result from def / att MUST BE < 5

admin already explain why is that into his last post i think so i'm not going to try and explain again the same thing, so i ask you to read and reread admin's post until you will get it (if you wont get it i'll send you a PM because this thread is getting spamed)
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 Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:06 pm

fivel wrote:YOUR formulas are correct


BUT,... IF your are trying to kill something from a defense of 114 bil with a strike of only 8.7bil you will do no damage BECAUSE the result from def / att MUST BE < 5
ah yes, you are correct, I remember that now. thanks for the reminder, & cheers for me "FINALLY" understanding this formula. (sorry, I had to toot me own horn a little bit. Very Happy Laughing )

admin already explain why is that into his last post i think so i'm not going to try and explain again the same thing, so i ask you to read and reread admin's post until you will get it (if you wont get it i'll send you a PM because this thread is getting spamed)

Spoiler:
**EDIT**

I put this here so I could find this easier later for future reference...


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.

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.

& this








Last edited by kingkongfan1 on Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:20 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : **EDIT**)
avatar
kingkongfan1
Coalition Officer
Coalition Officer

ID : kingkongfan1(98)
Alliance : [The Marauder's Imperium]
Age : 50
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 Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:05 pm

thanks fivel & manleva

_________________
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 Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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