Re: call for duelmasters help

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

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1992 22:36:40 +0000

In article <009625EC.C3F63300@abby.chem.ucla.edu> ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu
writes:
>I wrote:>
>>>A pretty low WT for a long term warrior, but his
>>>fights should be long enough to make up for it in skill learning.
>
>John-john writes:>
>>I completely disagree with the assertion that a warrior has a better
chance
>>of learning skills in a longer fight.  I've had warriors go for 8 minutes+
>>with 17+ wits.  One skill.

>I've had cases like that too, but I think, especially with TP's and wastes,
>that you can live with a lower WT.  I have a 3-2 PL 13 WT, and a 11-5 15 WT
WS,
>both of who learn well.

Oh, you want numbers?  I have a 15-14 (and like 20 tourney fights) PL with
_69_ skills to his name.  17 wit.

I had a 17 wit PR who died at 20 fights; 40 skills.

>Acutally, now that I think about it, The 'long fight'
>effect in TP's and WS's could be an artifact (jargon for 'artificial fact')
of
>the fact that these styles have high winning %.  I am almost certain that
the
>number of skills learned is increased if you win a particular fight.

I've seen this go both ways.  My 12-2-1 Waste has about 27 skills.  My
4-0-0, 16 wit PR couldn't learn < 4 skills a fight.

>I don't
>belive that each warrior has a 'luck stat' that influences his learning.

I do.

>This makes for interesting DM theory discussions:
>Factors that are thought to increase skill learning:
>
>1) High WT. This is obvious, and the dominant factor at high and low WTs.
What
>I mean by that is simply that a 21 WT warrior WILL learn lots o skills, and
a 7
>WT warrior WILL NOT, irregardless of other factors (except maybe death...)

My understanding of the effect of wit on learns is this:  The higher a
warriors wit, the more skills it's possible to learn in a fight.  I.E. it is
impossible for a 3 wit warrior to ever learn 6 skills in one fight, though a
21 wit warrior can.  One thing I have noticed:  warriors with 17 wits
AVERAGE around 2 skills a fight.   That's all I can say.

>2) Fighting a more experienced warrior.  Again, well known.  But is it the
>number of fights? Including tourney? (i.e., record vs. actual fights); or
is
>it the number of skills your 'teacher' has?  Do high levels of Attack in
the
>teacher give you a greater chance of learning one or more Attack skills?

At the face to face, the one of the RSI employees made some comment about
how she would modify the "house" teams for odd-man-out matchups in AD.  She
said that all those warriors were maxed out in all skills in order to
maximize their teaching potential.  However, this might be just how SHE
understood teaching to work.

>4) Other factors. Like time of fight mentioned above, maybe style
>considerations, or invisible 'luck' or 'teaching' stats.  These are
basically
>unknown.

This is what I believe in.  This is how I explain my above mentioned 29
fight PL and 20 fight PR who would only average 2 skills a fight despite
their 17 wits.  This is as opposed to my (also above mentioned) 16 wit PR
who would learn at LEAST 4 skills a fight.  And TUM's striker with 77 skills
in 18 fights (pbthhhht!).

>i.e., there is a correlation between time of fights and nubmer of
>skills learned, but is it a direct effect.

Hmmmm... I don't understand this example.

>I guess we'll not know for sure until someone horcs a copy of the source
code,
>but I'm very interested in other opinions on this subject and other
>'theoretical' subjects.

Well, you have mine.  Do any of you play in 37?  The Dealer claimed that the
Dark Circle had program information there a couple turns ago.  Hmmmm.

References

Re: call for duelmasters help
ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:42:13 +0000

Referenced By

Re: call for duelmasters help
ben@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Tue, 20 Oct 1992 14:42:13 +0000