CGL Speculation #5, It continues Options

[Elixir]

You know nothing about my standards.

Well actions are indicative of motives and standards. You are probably a upstanding person and this is all someone elses problem.

[DireRadiant]

A reminder to everyone that in addition to personal attacks, the ToS also preclude trolling, flaming and baiting posts.

[Method]

A doctor who is egotistical and uncaring about patient feelings? I'd be shocked.

Shocked if it stood out as unusual, that is.

Careful now... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Elixir]

Sure, but that was clearly an insult.

In your opinion.

I basically agree with you here. But I'll say the current crop of SR4 writers/developers focused in taking the game in a direction I dd not care for. Not saying it is universally wrong, but just not for me as much as previous editions. Though I do like the core of 4es mechanics, its in the rules details and story where it falls apart for me.

I enjoy the 4th edition for the most part. Those parts I don't enjoy are typically removed and replaced with previous revision or complete rewrites. (house rules are a norm around my games).

The story details are easily malleable into what I need. The stories provided jump start my own creative juices and I work with what I have to create the world that I envision in my mind.

Take the best parts, change the meh parts. and toss the trash out.

[Saint Sithney]

I'm still kind of wondering why Vairdic or Tiger Eyes haven't come out to deny criminal wrongdoing re: unreported convention income and fraudulently filed business checks. There are plenty of allegations which they could straight up put to rest without actually disclosing any information. Just, "that's not exactly true," and *poof* suddenly everything changes.

The fact that this hasn't happened, even after weeks of controversy, well, that's certainly something which begs speculation.

[Abschalten]

I, for one, will miss Frank. He was an asshole, sure. But he was my kind of asshole.

[Octopiii]

Nah. Our unofficial thread recap-er went and got himself banned (IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif) . But I agree that gripes about moderation really should be in the designated forum and thread.

You would have a better point if every thread griping about it in the moderation forum wasn't promptly locked.

[Caine Hazen]

Let's play behind the curtain again with Caine H...

Frank generated 28 coutable posts with multiple warnings being doled out in some of those in our little private area. I count at least 6 of those which he was just lead to slide, and in fact his ban came when there were 3 other reports being considered, one of which generated a non-counted warning which was basically, any other slip, no matter how little, would put him over the line... there were 2 reports following that. It doesn't matter how little it was... he knew that the next one was it, he chose to cross the line.

With that out of the way, you can now resume the speculation this thread is supposed to be about. Lets try and keep it on topic..

[Saint Sithney]

Yeah, yeah. Frank was banned for being a drama queen. It's lame. Anyway...

I'm still kind of wondering why Vairdic or Tiger Eyes haven't come out to deny criminal wrongdoing re: unreported convention income and fraudulently filed business checks. There are plenty of allegations which they could straight up put to rest without actually disclosing any information. Just, "that's not exactly true," and *poof* suddenly everything changes.

The fact that this hasn't happened, even after weeks of controversy, well, that's certainly something which begs speculation.

Madam Harding?
Monsieur Stansel-Garner?

The only logical conclusions I can draw from your silence regarding the accusations above are either:
1) You don't care enough about the situation to address them - which I don't believe as prior actions don't speak to this.
2) The above accusations are not true, but you refuse to refute them out of spite towards L Coleman - which I don't believe as you've already proven you are principled people.
3) The above accusations are not true, but you are in some way barred from dispelling such rumors - which I don't believe, because that would be complete nonsense.
4) It is totally true. Lorne is a crook and you are barred from speaking to the fact for several reasons. This is my currently held belief, and until someone with such first hand knowledge, such as yourselves dispels my belief, I will hold to it.

[Dread Moores]

Well, there's option 5 too. They haven't read the most recent posts yet to answer the questions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Saint Sithney]

Well, there's option 5 too. They haven't read the most recent posts yet to answer the questions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Yes, but those accusations were in the original post. Paragraph 1, post 1, page 1, thread 1 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/indifferent.gif)

[Dread Moores]

The accusations, sure. I was referring more to your options/questions.

[Cthulhudreams]

Thanks you, then i don't really need to care anymore.
I don't get to play much anyway, and this here has become way more important to me than the actual game in itself.

It'd be very surprised if it didn't result in SR5. RPG companies don't have a history of surviving massive fraud by founding members, and Topps is unlikely to have a sense of humor about royalty payments not being made due to owners of the company getting a 5 fingered discount on noticeable quantities of stock.

On a side note the 3e fighter was roughly balanced with the 3e wizard. Could someone make a wizard and play a wizard at high levels that blew the righter out of the water sure, but any versatile class given too much leeway by the DM will do that. The problem with D&D is it did not have a defined setting that actually dealt with high level spells and effects, so most wizards could scry, teleport and kill all they wanted and the DM did nothing.

This is wrong. If you want to see why it is wrong, all you have to do is subject a level X warrior and a level X wizard to the 'same game test' a series of CR X challenges. If the warrior wins less than 50% XOR the wizard wins statistically more than the warrior, then the warrior is underpowered.

[Saint Sithney]

The accusations, sure. I was referring more to your options/questions.

Aye, they've likely not read my post yet, but they've certainly read the 1st post or are otherwise aware of the accusations being floated around.

In that case, it's covered by option 1, "just don't care," which M. Harding has already proven not to be the case on her end through taking time to clarify her own actions and interactions concerning Randall Bills.

Maybe they will address my logic and dismiss it, however until they do, I feel it is the strongest model for the situation. Said model being that LLC is an outright thief who would compulsively steal from his friends, Randall Bills tried to help cover it up to avoid embarrassment, and the people who are in the position to level such claims against them are bound by legal agreement not to talk about it.

[hermit]

Or maybe they have moved on?

[Bob Lord of Evil]

This is wrong. If you want to see why it is wrong, all you have to do is subject a level X warrior and a level X wizard to the 'same game test' a series of CR X challenges. If the warrior wins less than 50% XOR the wizard wins statistically more than the warrior, then the warrior is underpowered.

To be statistically significant you need 10,000 samples.
The warrior does have a problem, WILL save or die situations, but that is just IMO.

In regards to Saint Sithney's assertions...
You live long enough and you come to the conclusion that there are three sides to any dispute, side A, side B, and in the middle actual events that transpired. In any criminal case the least effective evidence is that of the eye witness. You take enough witness statements and you accept this as fact and not merely truth.

However, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[D2F]

To be statistically significant you need 10,000 samples.

I hate arguing "X Class is better than Y" in terms of PnP RPGs, but for the love of all that is holy, don't use technical terms, in misleading ways. You can have a mathematical significant with as much as 2 (!!!!) test subjects. While significant, it will not be very valid, though. Test validity (value) and significance have nothing to do with each other. If you were aiming for a "gaussian distribution" of your data points, then say so, but even that can be achieved with as much as 30 test subjects.

On the other hand, if you use 10,000 samples, you will get a signicant result on pretty much ANYTHING! The expression of your difference, however could so small as to be irrelevant. That's why you need to compare the means as well, not just look for significance.

tldr: Large sample sizes are bullshit! Amp up the sample size enough and you will get a significant result on anything. That's why scientific studies don't do that. That's why pollster do it. It causes me headaches that the general populace still thinks "the larger the better" when it comes to sample sizes...

[urgru]

Option 6: There are a number of complex legal issues at play here and people recognize that it's only appropriate to speak for themselves, their motivations, and what they directly witnessed. Tiger Eyes has explicitly refused to comment on some things, repeat hearsay, etc. It's responsible, appropriate and frankly, the smart thing to do.

[fistandantilus4....]

Well… we have yet to see a ToS reference for the removal of links in those two posts.

Sorry to come in late, but I wanted to answer this real quick. We have actually drafted and agreed upon on adendum to the ToS that forbids posting of personal information such as addresses and phone numbers for example.

As for the locked discussions, those threads could have been locked once the original post was made, which did come up in discussion. The thread degenerated beyond usefulness so it was locked.

Again, sorry for the interjection, but I wanted the answers to these questions in the same thread they were asked. Please keep discussion about moderation issues to the appropriate forum.

[Cthulhudreams]

To be statistically significant you need 10,000 samples.
The warrior does have a problem, WILL save or die situations, but that is just IMO.

If you want to do that you could certainly write a monte carlo simulation and run it 10,000 times with no problems at all. Alternatively you can just calculate probabilities and achieve the same effect. I think it is pointless to do A when you can do B.

Incidentally, you do not need 10,000 samples, I have no idea why you would think that.

* A huge Animated iron statue.
* A Basilisk.
* A Large Fire Elemental.
* A Manticore on the wing.
* A Mummy.
* A Phase Spider.
* A Troll.
* A chasm.
* A moat filled with acid.
* A locked door behind a number of pit traps.
* A couple of Centaur Archers in the woods.
* A Howler/Allip tag team.
* A pit filled with medium monstrous scorpions.
* A Grimlock assault team.
* A Cleric of Hextor (with his zombies)

Is a good place to start - CR 5 encounters.

[X-Kalibur]

Actually, that's not a good place to start because encounters are roughly balanced (as is the entire game, for that matter) from CR 5 - CR 12.

As to Frank being a med student. I know PLENTY of doctors, I work with them every day. Most of them are egotistical assholes. God forbid you have to tell them they are wrong (worst of all as a nurse, they can write a patient off). But you know what? They still have professional integrity with their patients.

I personally would much rather have a smart doctor than a nice doctor. But I think we would all prefer to have both.

[Tiger Eyes]

Madam Harding?

Sorry for my silence this week. I just accepted a position as an HR & Finance manager for a gaming company this week. I'm sure everyone can understand how hectic your first week at a new job can be!

I can't speak for David, but as for myself, I have decided to devote my energies more productively to succeeding at my new position than to continuing to dwell on what happened in my past position. Urgru has a very valid and good point. I am moving on and focusing on what the future holds.

I remain a huge SR fan, play in a weekly SR game, and hope to continue to be a writer for the game line. I consider many current and past writers good friends and look forward to working with them on more cool and fun projects in the future. I mean, hey, I have to finish the Netcat and Pistons searching for Puck story... and Slamm-0! hasn't been forgotten, either...

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you want to do that you could certainly write a monte carlo simulation and run it 10,000 times with no problems at all. Alternatively you can just calculate probabilities and achieve the same effect. I think it is pointless to do A when you can do B.

Incidentally, you do not need 10,000 samples, I have no idea why you would think that.

Is a good place to start - CR 5 encounters.

Just a Note, But we are Way Off Topic Here, but I just wanted to reply...

Except that you now have to create a baseline for the Tested Characters...

What Level?
1st Level?
5th Level?
8th Level?
15th Level?
20th Level?

Which Equipment?

Oh, and which Edition?
Basic
ADD?
ADD2?
Add2.5?
3rd?
3.5?
4th?

All of this makes a difference... In my estimation, 20th Level Characters will always win against those pesky CR5 encounters, regardless of
Class... while 2nd Level Characters will have some difficulty... Casting Limits for a spellcaster make a difference when compared to the combat abilities of a Fighter... Spell Availability vs. Weapon Choice? This is Important as well... Also, please remember that Encounters are balanced against a PARTY of 4 characters (From 3rd on at least)... Change the party size, and the CR encounters change dramatically...

So, It obviously becomes a lot more complex than you are initially letting on...

Keep the Faith

[Cthulhudreams]

Did you read my post?

If you want to see why it is wrong, all you have to do is subject a level X warrior and a level X wizard to the 'same game test' a series of CR X challenges. If the warrior wins less than 50% XOR the wizard wins statistically more than the warrior, then the warrior is underpowered.

I thought it was obvious that X should be the same in all parts of the equation, my apologies if it was not.

As we are discussing 'Challenge ratings' this implies 3rd or 3.5. Either is acceptable.

Also, please remember that Encounters are balanced against a PARTY of 4 characters (From 3rd on at least)... Change the party size, and the CR encounters change dramatically...

No, the win percentage changes. There is a mathematical relationship between CR and Level. Now obviously some characters will have trouble with some encounters and not others, which is why you look at average win percentage across a number of different challenges.

Which Equipment?

In 3/3.5 wealth per level is in the DMG. I do not have the page number handy.

[Bob Lord of Evil]

tldr: Large sample sizes are bullshit! Amp up the sample size enough and you will get a significant result on anything. That's why scientific studies don't do that. That's why pollster do it. It causes me headaches that the general populace still thinks "the larger the better" when it comes to sample sizes...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Incidentally, you do not need 10,000 samples, I have no idea why you would think that.

If you aren't worried about being statistically significant, then no you don't.