A Few Questions/Observations From an Old Player

[Oramin]

Folks, either can the personal opinions about each other or go take it to somebody else's thread.

Thanks.

[DaviddesJ]

I'm often wrong. If you aren't wrong sometimes, you aren't forming enough opinions.

[Magnate]

You sound like a troll to be avoided.

Unfortunately it's worse than simple trolling, it's an ego that can't be wrong.

[Derakon]

Okay, can we stop trying to score points against each other in a stupid internet debate? Neither of you is accomplishing anything except raising your respective blood pressures and annoying everyone else.

[DaviddesJ]

I (used to) know lots of stuff about Gerard Manley Hopkins and Walt Whitman, and I'm happy to accept whatever bonus damage is on offer.

My theory is looking good!

[Oramin]

Timo:

The easiest way to think about it is that an x3 mutiplier adds 200% damage.

So, an ordinary arrow fired from a long bow is (base + 2 x base).

A slay arrow is (base + 2 x base).

So, for a slay arrow fired from a long bow, you add in the bonus 200% damage twice: base + 2 x base + 2 x base = 5 x base.

[Timo Pietilä]

I take it that you don't want to answer the question about your degrees. It doesn't matter, I was just curious.

No, I don't want to give you any info about me beyond my name. You sound like a troll to be avoided.

[Timo Pietilä]

The easiest way to understand why it's wrong is because if you have an x3 launcher and x1 missiles then you don't get x4 damage. We know that because the shops sell x1 missiles (i.e., ordinary, nonmagical arrows) and they only give x3 total damage. So adding the multipliers is illogical and gives the wrong result in that case. That means it's equally illogical to add the multipliers when you have x3 missiles.

Both add the same base individually, so there are x3 twice. It applies even when slay is in shooter, not only when it is in missile.

Illogical is to assume that you have simple 1x missiles when in reality you have base dice + to_dam from missile + to_dam from shooter which gets multiplied. That imaginary "1x" is not there, only base damage which is not multiplier by itself.

There is no 1x shooter either. Or do you call throwing an arrow a shooter with 1x multiplier?

[DaviddesJ]

The easiest way to understand why it's wrong is because if you have an x3 launcher and x1 missiles then you don't get x4 damage. We know that because the shops sell x1 missiles (i.e., ordinary, nonmagical arrows) and they only give x3 total damage. So adding the multipliers is illogical and gives the wrong result in that case. That means it's equally illogical to add the multipliers when you have x3 missiles.

But you've already said this argument isn't compelling to you, so there's only so many times I will repeat it. It was only a very minor point (and I never expected it to be controversial). So I would rather move on to something else.

[DaviddesJ]

Why do you think it is wrong? As I explained it is perfectly sensible in this case. Or didn't you read what I wrote?

I explained several times, most people who care seem to understand my point, I don't feel like repeating it yet again. I think your position is clearly wrong, yet not every dispute on the internet can be resolved by force of logic. Sometimes people just have to disagree.

I take it that you don't want to answer the question about your degrees. It doesn't matter, I was just curious.

[Timo Pietilä]

But in what subject? My theory is that people who have studied the physical sciences (e.g., math, physics, chemistry) will feel that combining two multipliers by adding them is clearly "wrong".

Why do you think it is wrong? As I explained it is perfectly sensible in this case. Or didn't you read what I wrote?

BTW, I wouldn't put math in physical sciences but I would put computer science in it. I had once a schoolmate who had doctorate on math and he was very bad at anything relating real world. Physics and chemistry definitely use math a lot, but math alone is nothing more than a tool. If you are studying a tool and not what that tool is used for you have separated yourself from the real world by one layer.

[Derakon]

Sorry, I got my brain flipped when talking about the major. I did a lot of applied math too -- multivariable calculus, differential equations, statistics, etc. I guess maybe those aren't going to show up in every CS curriculum but they did for my college.

[scud]

I (used to) know lots of stuff about Gerard Manley Hopkins and Walt Whitman, and I'm happy to accept whatever bonus damage is on offer.

[DaviddesJ]

This is what I was getting at -- a computer science degree is going to have a fair amount of abstracted mathematics in it.

Yes, there's quite a bit of abstract thinking in a typical computer science curriculum. Not nearly so much of the mathematics of the physical world. That's my point. It's the latter that's relevant (I think) to this "how do you combine multipliers" question.

In theory, you could also study mathematics in the abstract, without much connection to the physical world. But, in practice, people don't. So much of modern mathematics was developed to solve physical problems, that that's still how it's taught. Why do we care about solving linear ODEs with constant coefficients? Because so many things in the real world are described by them.

[Oramin]

He's right on this. Most of the CS classes I took required very little in the way of actual math even though CS majors took basically the same math courses required for other majors such as engineering and physics.