Re: DM : Advice

From: johnjohn@cco.caltech.edu (John White)

Date: Fri, 04 Dec 1992 18:15:16 +0000

In article <00964883.19FE24C0@abby.chem.ucla.edu> ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu
writes:
>All (Especially mega-type-managers)

How about mega-type-net-personalities like me!

>In Khalhums I have this PL:
>10-11(+1)-6-15-17-11-15
>Expert Attack (2 skills)

Good bonus.  I have a 17 wit/will/deft PL that took 2 skills to get expert
attack...

>Expert Init (6 or 7 skills)

Decent.

>When I got the roll-up, I though I had a really good warrior here, and by
my
>charts (actually Trump's...) he has a good skill base.

Good?   Yeah, but that lack of wit at the beginning will hurt.  If you run a
15 wit guy, it's good to have a 21 will.

>He started out OK going defensive in min 1 (5-2-5-x-P), but then lost 4 in
row.

That's because PL's don't have a decent starting performance level like,
say, a lunger or a waste.  That's kind of a blah strategy anyway.  What's
the aim?  Defend with a PL's starting parry?  Be flexible with a PL's
overall low skill base?

>He is presently 6-8, went out-in-two at tourney, but I'm now pretty sure I
>found his favorite (LS), and he appears to like the Lunge tactic as well.

Wait, how are you running him now?  5-2-5-L with 14 fights?!

>Lately I have been running offensive.

What's offensive?

>One big problem is that he averages about 1.2 skills/fight.

We've been over that before, right?  _15_wit_.

>My current theory, called the Enver Hoxha theory, after
>this warrior, is that his learning potential was severly worsened by that
>string of four losses.  These losses were probably due to not running
>offensively when I should have (no Ex parry...).  Now I think, being low in
the
>rankings, and not being able to defeat experienced warriors, he is caught
is a
>vicious circle of not having any skills, so losing, so not learning any
>skills, so losing...

2 things.  Your minimum rec pushes you up no matter what (eventually).
You're assuming that your battle outcome is the prime effect in your
learning, but seem to ignore the _15_ wit.  1.2 is about right for this type
of warrior.

> My question is:  Is this guy ever going to learn?  Do warriors (in basic)
> ever start learning again (he learned well his first few fights)?  Or is
> it, at this point, a given that it's going to take 40 fights to get him to
> AD.

Again, 15 wit.  Learning comes and goes, though.  Rarely will warriors learn
well consistently (like 2.5+).  I don't really subscribe to your theory, so
I don't think that it will take 50 fights to get to AD, though it might take
40 (there isn't anything wrong with that... more chances to get the
Champions TC...).

>Because I just found his favorite,I want to see if he can win a few fights,
>but if hestill doesn't learn, I'll probably DA him.  He seemed to learn
>better when he was winning, do you think if he starts winning again, or
>fights alot of old timers, he'll learn more skills?  I'm pretty convinced
>that winning a given fight, or fighting an older, more experienced warrior,
>increases learns, but what I am looking for here is advice from experienced
>managers who have been in a similar situation before.

I don't think that any of the effects that you're talking about are as
pronounced as you seem to think.  The greatest would be fighting warriors
that have learned a lot of skills.  That is, if you can hang around upper
champions/CC's, you tend to learn better (not a whole lot better, but
better).  Just winning isn't going to do it, I don't think.

John White
-minus a cool DM .sig

References

DM : Advice
ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Thu, 03 Dec 1992 16:04:02 +0000