wt + cs = ?

[Topsy]

Does anyone know what the relationship is between clearsight and WT? If you have 25% effects from WT and have cs active, does it result in 50%(additive), or to 56%(multiplicative), or to whatever it is when you figure in the probability that 3/4 of the time you are opped there is a 50% chance it is blocked, and 1/4 the time there is a 25% chance it is blocked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvQFtlNQ-M

[Age of Ambush]

They are multiplicative.

Assume CS and 50% with WT:

.75*.5 = 37.5% success rate rather than 25%

[Landro]

What AoA said

[Ethan]

Er - expect the original example said 25% stopped via WT's (as listed on build adviser I assume), and CS, which is also 25%.
So while the form is correct, the numbers are not the requested ones, but instead what happens if you got 50% stopped via WT's while having CS on. This is why the number listed is so low! (Note, additive would have been 25%, even lower!)

For the 25% with 25% from CS, we get chance of success is:
(1-.25) * (1-.25) = 56.25%

I'm guessing the OP rounded this to 56% - note that is the *success rate*, so 43.75% of the ops are failing due to the combination.
You can get to the same point math wise with:
25% fail (WT's) + 25% * (1-.25) fail (CS) = 25% + 18.75%
The main reason to avoid this is it becomes easy to get lost if you have more than 2 factors - safer to calc chance of success in these formulations.

[aremarf]

Ethan thanks for the clarification - I appreciate your contributions :-)

However, re: your signature - I'm afraid I can't agree. It is quite unfortunate that English uses the "-s" morpheme (almost always realised as a /s/ or /z/) to represent too many things (plural marking on nouns, number agreement on verbs, marking possession, clitic form of "is"). But written text is often used to represent speech (speech is more basic and what comes first, comes naturally to all people - writing is not as "natural" a part of the human faculty). Therefore - it's not useful to change "It's a boy" to "'Tis a boy" - because that's not what happens in speech. And speech should be privileged over text (at least in forum chats).

[Topsy]

ty all. Although its multiplicative, could someone explain to me how I easily figure out what the % would be if it had been the 3rd choice? I remember knowing at some point how to figure those probabilities, but I have no idea anymore without making a whole ton of boxes.

[Age of Ambush]

#3-

.5(3/4) + .25(1/4) = average block chance of 43.75%
.5(3/4) + .75(1/4) = average success rate of 56.25%

[igotnomilk]

Didn't want to make a new thread, so I'll just ask a related question here:

Clear sight - Gives a 25% chance to catch thieves in addition to the normal chance

WTs have dual effect:
- Chance of Catching Enemy Thieves
- Rate of Repelling Individual Enemy Thieves

From the description, I gather that CS and WT's first effect does not actually help block enemy operations? Rather they increase the chances of enemy thieves getting caught. If I am not mistaken, an op can succeed even with some thieves caught. Or is the description unclear?

Only WT's second effect help in actually 'repelling individual enemy thieves'? What does that even mean?

Can't wait to hear people's take on this.

[Jay.K]

From the description, I gather that CS and WT's first effect does not actually help block enemy operations? Rather they increase the chances of enemy thieves getting caught. If I am not mistaken, an op can succeed even with some thieves caught. Or is the description unclear?

Yes an op can still succeed with a few thieves caught. CS helps with this, I think.

Only WT's second effect help in actually 'repelling individual enemy thieves'? What does that even mean?

Enemy thieves auto fail rate on you.

[soSincerious]

"Rate of Repelling Individual Enemy Thieves" - to me, just going by how this is worded it seems like it's describing the chance of denying a certain percentage of thieves. for example, enemy sends 1000 thieves to rob you, the operation succeeds and some gold is taken, however your WT's only allow 600 to be effective, therefore lowering the amount of gold lost.

This is just going by the logic that assuming "Chance of Catching Enemy Thieves" means the chance of complete fail rate.

[Topsy]

It is basically what sosincerious said. The first buff of WT is to increase the amount of theives necessary for the enemy prov to get max returns.

[igotnomilk]

Edit : Sorry for double post: read next

[igotnomilk]

Topsy you do mean the second buff of WT right?

Clear sight does not help make a province fail thievery operations against you. Nowhere does it say in the description about fail rate. "Chance of catching enemy thieves" is not the same as "Chance of enemy thieves failing" is it?

Thieve operations can fail or succeed, with or without thieves being caught. Failure/success is not related to thieves caught.
I can send 1000 thieves on a province, lose 500, and still succeed.
I could also do the same again and have no thieves caught.

I'm only asking because from the beginning of this thread, people have been talking about "fail rates", "percentage operations blocked", "success" with regard to Clear Sight and WTs' first buff.

[Ethan]

AFAIK, there are two different effects of WTs, one of which CS also has.

CS causes a 25% chance to fail the op entirely. In particular, whatever rate at which ops succeed [P] with CS off, then an identical situation except with CS on will succeed only 75% [P*.75] of the time. Incidentally, this fail rate from CS could be checked at any point in the process and produce the same decrease, so long as 'tis an independent check.

One of the WT effects is exactly like this as well, except of course that the % might not be 25%. The "other" WT effect, the one described with something like "blocks x% enemy thieves", is conceptually a damage modifier. If this effect were at 30%, then a rob op that steals 100k gc in one op without the WT effect will instead take only 70k gc. Similarly for NS damage and the like. I do not know if this is applied before or after the cap check - remember the question about human? In human's case, the +40% damage occurs *before* the cap, so it really just requires fewer thieves to hit the cap point. If WT thief rejection also occurs before the cap (as I would guess), then it really just requires sending more thieves to get the full effect. (Except in cases, like prop, where the cap can not be reached.)

Note, for thief rejection, that intel ops are *excluded* from this effect - 20%+1 is still sufficient. (They didn't do that in an early draft, I think including a bit of the first age with SoT. It was bad and confusing.) Note also that, while crossing War relations (in or out) has a 75% damage reduction... that damage reduction *does* impact intel ops. And that intra-kingdom ops in post war CF are considered to be targeting a kingdom you are not at war with. This gets reported as a bug every age... 'tis not a bug, just a "mis-feature". I also do not know how the op caps interact with war relations.


Re: 'tis
All fair points - I'm mostly just doing it for fun, at to be a bit different. Though 'tis amazing how often I find it on the tip of my fingers in formal settings (like work), and even more amazing (though less frequent) how prone I am to think it, and even to say it, in conversation. We all read Shakespeare, we know it works for spoken English too - 'tis just archaic these days. I don't expect anyone else to adopt it, but I'm having fun with it so far.

[igotnomilk]

Okay so it does help with fail rate. I was more worried about the double meaning of "% chance catch thieves" in the description.

The second effect I understand a bit better now, thank you.