• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

AoS Army Harmonizer

samheim said:
I am not saying that GW does not have a formula. I would say, from my observations I don't really think they do. I think its based on how they feel it is. At that given time.
Click to expand...
GW most certainly does not players do.

samheim said:
That's why I don't think its possible to brake down the points costs of the models. I think the only way is to try to build up the points cost of the models, as there was never a cohesive system for pointing models in the first place.
Click to expand...
cohesive no but we can break it down that's how we know when a model is to expensive or to cheep
 
If you want to offer one faction a discount, because that faction is all about magic. So you say we give them spells for 20% cheaper.
Then you need to make that cost up somewhere else.

So you need to know the small values, so you can accurately assign the costs.

So if my 8 inch range, 6 damage spell with 4 inch radius costs 80 points instead of 100 points.

Then I need to know where those small values so I can say transfer them to penalty on how fast they move etc.

If you have a solid system in place, building from the ground up, is easy as long as you keep to it. But yea applying a points formula to something built over a long time with no formula is more or less impossible.
 
samheim said:
If you want to offer one faction a discount, because that faction is all about magic. So you say we give them spells for 20% cheaper.
Then you need to make that cost up somewhere else.

So you need to know the small values, so you can accurately assign the costs.

So if my 8 inch range, 6 damage spell with 4 inch radius costs 80 points instead of 100 points.

Then I need to know where those small values so I can say transfer them to penalty on how fast they move etc.

If you have a solid system in place, building from the ground up, is easy as long as you keep to it. But yea applying a points formula to something built over a long time with no formula is more or less impossible.
Click to expand...
that is a awfull spell. 8" range should probably be negative points.
 
Ok another reason I would say that GW price their games subjectively and not objectively to a mathematical formula is this.

If you were pricing to a formula, it would be impossible to change the points values of units without adjusting their stats or abilities. You can't just shave 10 points off here or there, or you brake the formula for the whole game.

The way you would adjust the game, is by adding new abilities or changing stats and points accordingly.

Would following a formula make things better?

I argue that even if a formula did not balance the game or work as well as expected, it would still make the game better, because it would prevent stupid stuff like Paragon of order even being added in the first place.

As you can't fit something like that into a points formula, you wouldn't even think about it to start with.

Even if a formula worked to well, AoS still would not be like chess, because unlike chess, different factions have different slants.

If you want points in the game, they have to be as integral to it as the movement stats of a model.

Drawing up all the stats, abilities and spells etc then trying to point them afterwards, is...

Well it's not built on a foundation of logic. Not saying its not a good game. Its subjective and can be really exhilarating, because its to do with luck.

If the goal is to have fun (which is why I play it) then its an amazing experience. But if you are trying to play it competitively, then to me it makes no sense, because its to much to do with exploiting unbalanced maths.

I understand as well, some people have real talent on the table top at playing the game. Not to belittle their hard work at all. But they are putting all this hard work into crunching the numbers. Should not the game itself, be built on solid numbers?
 
The good news is this can all be fixed!

Not by me though, contrary to popular belief computer programmers normally only have a rudimentary understanding of maths.

What GW need to do, is find a 60 year old mathematics professor. Probably someone who wears a tweed jacket, criminally uncool, maybe has a snuff box.

But someone like that. They would be able to come up with a formula that actually works and is balanced. That's what they do. So they would be able to get all the ratios right and all the other things.

In life, that's what happens when you think you can do things and have a go, its possible to make a complete balls up of things.

In programming it happens everyday of the year, software projects are abandoned because of incompetence or poor vision.

You have to have the right people for the job. Don't think you know as much as that guy who has being doing something for 40 years, because only a few freaks of nature can trump that experience with talent.
 
That was a ride. Excited to see the end result, but ultimately i think part of the fun is that its not balanced.

List building is such a cool part of the game. It woild be a shame to get rid of it.
 
samheim said:
I should probably do it, because it's something that will make me want to program. As I am older finding the motivation to sit in front of the screen for long hours, trying to fix small errors when your brain went to soup 5 hours ago. Its really hard.

I will try to make a start.

Another point was, that I foresaw as other's did how hard it would be to point for some of the abilities. Anything is possible with software. If you told people when they were playing Mario Bros, one day Star Citizen would be a game they could play. It would be impossible for them to believe.

Anything is possible, but so is climbing Mount Everest. You still have to go out and climb the mountain.

I think we can work out how many square inch's are on a table. 4 x 6 feet.

So that would be a total of 288 square inch's.

Somehow this helps to work out the effectiveness of the abilities radius of effect. But I don't know how yet.

So to me that is a big problem to work out how to do that. It would take some time to figure that all out.

Actually building a pointing system, is probably not that difficult in comparison to factoring in these things.

And it might even/probably is just some mathematical equation you can do to work out all this stuff for you, without needing to build complex models.

Then there is the other problem, this is something where you could get deep into it, and then be faced with another big unforeseen problem, that you had no idea about when you began.

At the moment, the time I would be willing to invest, would probably take me up to some basic units and basic abilities. The Old Blood's snap to it ability to me at the moment, looks like it could take more time to work out then the rest of the application.

That said there is probably someone out there, who could do it in 5 min, because they already have experience of solving those kind of problems.
Click to expand...
that's not 288 square inches, its 3456 square inches. 144 would be 1' square in inches 4x12 48, 6x12 72; 72x48 3456 square inches
 
samheim said:
https://www.squarefootagearea.com/calculator/square-inches-calculator/ 12 inchs in a foot
Click to expand...
yes there is. 12 inches times 4 feet is 48 inches. 12 inches times 6 feet is 72 inches. 72 inches times 48 inches (to get inches square) is 3456 inches. that calculator is wrong. ill break it down barney style it for you hero:

2x8 16 (ones place times ones place)
2x4 is 8, plus the carried 1 from the 16 is 9, in the 10s place, so its 96 for the 48 x 2
next step enter in your "magic zero" place holder for the ones place
now 7x8 is 56, carry the 5 put the 6 in the tens place for 60 so far
7 x 4 is 28 plus the 5 is 33. so that's a 3 in the hundreds spot and a 3 in the THOUSANDS spot for 3,360, which is 48 x 70
add in the 96 and you get 3,456

class dismissed.
 
ILKAIN said:
yes there is. 12 inches times 4 feet is 48 inches. 12 inches times 6 feet is 72 inches. 72 inches times 48 inches (to get inches square) is 3456 inches. that calculator is wrong. ill break it down barney style it for you hero:

2x8 16 (ones place times ones place)
2x4 is 8, plus the carries 1 from the 16 is 9, in the 9s place, so its 96 for the 48 x 2
next step enter in your "magic zero" place holder for the ones place
now 7x8 is 56, carry the 5 put the 6 in the tens place for 60 so far
7 x 4 is 28 plus the 5 is 33. so that's a 3 in the hundreds spot and a 3 in the THOUSANDS spot for 3,360, which is 48 x 70
add in the 96 and you get 3,456

class dismissed.
Click to expand...

So you played AoS on a gaming board with 3,456 square inch's before?
 
listen hero, im trying to be helpful not combative. you based your board size on a massive math miscalculation, im attempting to point it out so that you at least have the right info for this project. I literally set aside my personal opinion on the project to help you.
 
1 square ft, or a 1'x1' board is 144 aquare inches (12x12). ignore the math use logic. the board we play on is 4 feet by 6 feet. does it make sense that a 1x1 foot board is 144 inches square and a 4x6 foot board is less than double that?
 
ILKAIN said:
listen hero, im trying to be helpful not combative. you based your board size on a massive math miscalculation, im attempting to point it out so that you at least have the right info for this project. I literally set aside my personal opinion on the project to help you.
Click to expand...


Ok https://www.hunker.com/12410037/how-to-calculate-the-surface-area-of-a-table

No its totally understandable, I make mistakes like this a lot. I am just checking it up. It just sounded hard to get my head round that there is 3 500 inchs on the table, and I am only using a 12 inch measure.
 
ILKAIN said:
1 square ft, or a 1'x1' board is 144 aquare inches (12x12). ignore the math use logic. the board we play on is 4 feet by 6 feet. does it make sense that a 1x1 foot board is 144 inches square and a 4x6 foot board is less than double that?
Click to expand...

Yes, fair point.
 
OK checks out https://www.sensorsone.com/length-and-width-to-area-calculator/

That's what I mean though, about needing someone who is really good at mathematics to do all this stuff.

I know some basic stuff, like most people would know using the internet. The problem occurs when things like that happen. Someone with experience would be able to spot that right away. Where as I would be scratching my head looking at that calculator for ages.
 
it mostly looks like it didn't carry properly and it treated multiplication action by addition rules.... it just multiplied in the way you would add. 7x4 is 28 in the tens (and hundreds) and 2x8 is 16 in the ones.... that would get you 286... not really sure how it randomly added 2 lol
 
ILKAIN said:
it mostly looks like it didn't carry properly and it treated multiplication action by addition rules.... it just multiplied in the way you would add. 7x4 is 28 in the tens (and hundreds) and 2x8 is 16 in the ones.... that would get you 286... not really sure how it randomly added 2 lol
Click to expand...

Yes, I have not needed to use an area calculation for 20 + years. I remembered when I saw the answer it didn't seem right, because I vaguely remembered that the area should be a very high number. But I was thinking about other things as well, and I was dependant on the calculator.

That's why in life, you can't really do that much on your own, your always much stronger as part of a team, because you only need a few little oversights or mistakes to sink what you are trying to do.
 
unless it just brought the 8 down... damn that thing is programmed really badly. I put in 10 inches both ways (simple math should be 100squar inches. it spit out 8.333 square inches.... so less inches than entered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top