<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/12/2013 3:24 PM, Lev Lafayette
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5932ca1f13c3f129c705c911116ce312.squirrel@webmail.rpgreview.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, December 24, 2013 11:27 am, Michael Cole wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
But basically, no it is not the same effect. The cause is the same, i.e,
the range has increased, but the effect that that will have on an
individual shooter will vary according to how good they are at coping with
that increase in range. Their level of accuracy will not drop off at the
same rate.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
How do you know it won't? I really don't see this through reading through
the markmanship and distinguished shooter awards of the US army, for
example.
</pre>
</blockquote>
OK. Lets start with the target at about point blank range. At a
point where Doofus the Recruit should be able to hit it at about 95%
of the time. Lets say that Sharpie the Marksman now has 99% - hey,
he could miss.<br>
<br>
Now lets move the target back far enough so that it is now even
money for Doofus to hit - 50%. You are arguing that at that range,
Sharpie should now only be able to hit the target at 54% of the
time. Its not about whether or not you can hit the target, its
about how often you can do it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5932ca1f13c3f129c705c911116ce312.squirrel@webmail.rpgreview.net"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Another example - two people drag racing, one a professional driver, the
other not. Throw in a sharp curve. The curve will have a far greater
effect on the non-professional than the professional - the decrease in
ability to keep the car moving sfaely at speed will not be linear. The
cause is the same, the effect is not.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The main difference is that the expert *knows* how much they need to slow
down, when to break, where the apex point is, etc. This knowledge is
reflecting in their skill rating. The effect of the corner can still be
same, and the effect on their base skill level will also be the same, but
because of their high general rating they're able to take these modifiers
and still succeed. </pre>
</blockquote>
Anyone can still succeed. That's not the question here. Its how
often they will succeed. And they will succeed much more often (not
just slightly more often) than the amateur.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5932ca1f13c3f129c705c911116ce312.squirrel@webmail.rpgreview.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">That's what having a high skill level represents - the
ability to make contingencies under difficult circumstances.</pre>
</blockquote>
No, high skill level means that you can now do simple stuff in your
sleep - difficult stuff is slightly less difficult that it was
before, but it is still difficult. Lets take lock-picking. Lets
say that at beginning level, simple locks are at around 60%, tough
at 50%. You improve. Simple locks are now at 90%, tough will be
at 60%. At some point as you increase in level, simple stuff will
be come routine, but difficult will still remain difficult - not as
difficult as before, but still difficult. Your skill (in other
words, the amount of time it will take you on average to unlock
them) with simple compared to difficult locks will <i>not increase
</i><i>at the same rate</i>.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:5932ca1f13c3f129c705c911116ce312.squirrel@webmail.rpgreview.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">And none of these examples resolves the fundamental problem with normal
distribution that negative modifiers punish people of average ability
dramatically more than people of high or low ability - which is just
silly.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Low ability being effectively less than a 10? As in defaulting, or
just plain crap? As in they don't really have that far to fall? If
you skill at a <u>base chance</u> is less than 50% then you don't
have low ability - you suck at that task. Its not that skill which
will allow you to do the task, its sheer blind luck. Odds are that
you will fail far more than you succeed.<br>
<br>
Note here that I am not arguing that the numbers all work out -
sure, we could fix the numbers. But a linear system would be even
more broken - that is what I am arguing. The key point is that as
you get better, simple stuff becomes extremely simple, difficult
stuff becomes only slightly less difficult.<br>
<br>
BTW, you are famous. Read this
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=1490660"><http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread.php?p=1490660></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>