I was bored and started thinking about the effective increase of our power when gaining another strategem (since a major part of our strength as a "mage" isn't dependent so much on mp, as it is our strategem reserve).
We all know the formula to calculate the amount of time to recover a strategem is 4/x * 60 = y (x = max strategems, y = time to recover in seconds).
I'm thinking about strategem levels and how much of a difference they really make in our gameplay.
<Effective value is simply a tier ratio>
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)
The jump from 1 strategem to 2 is an increase in power at an effective value of 50%.
The jump from 2 strategems to 3 is an increase in power at an effective value of 66%.
The jump from 3 strategems to 4 is an increase in power at an effective value of 75%.
The jump from 4 strategems to 5 is an increase in power at an effective value of 80%.
Theoretically
The jump from 5 strategems to 6 is an increase in power at an effective value of 83%.
The jump from 6 strategems to 7 is an increase in power at an effective value of 85%.
To me, the math "seems" right on an intuitive level. I just "felt" like going from 4 to 5 was more empowering than going from 3 to 4.
This thread really has no purpose (other than my boredom with the SCH forum), so entertain me with your opinions about strategem levels.
·Theme
- MMO News & Info
- Aion
- Dark Age of Camelot
- EVE Online
- EverQuest
- EverQuest II
- Final Fantasy XI
- Final Fantasy XIV
- FreeRealms
- Lord of the Rings Online
- Star Wars: The Old Republic
- Warhammer Online
- World of Warcraft
- BL2DB
- DayZDB
- Diablo 3 Database
- Dragon Nest Armory
- Guildhead
- LolKing
- MMOUI
- Rifthead
- SC2 Ranks
- TankSpot
- Tera Tome
- Thottbot
- Torchlight Armory
- Torhead
- Vindictus DB
- Wowhead
How do you feel about strategems?Follow
75NIN, 75BLM, 75SCH, 75SAM, 64BRD, 41RDM, 37DNC, 37WHM, 37WAR
Instead of doing math based on the total number strategems, I would do math based on the refresh time for a single strategem.
Jump from 1 to 2: 240/120 = 200% (100% increase)
Jump from 2 to 3: 120/80 = 150% (50% increase)
Jump from 3 to 4: 80/60 = 133% (33% increase)
Jump from 4 to 5: 60/48 = 125% (25% increase)
Jump from 5 to 6: 48/40 = 120% (20% increase)
Jump from 6 to 7: 40/34.2 = 117% (17% increase)
These calculations are simply the inverse of what you did ("Jump from X to Y" is calculated as Y/X, rather than X/Y).
Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
Jump from 1 to 2: 240/120 = 200% (100% increase)
Jump from 2 to 3: 120/80 = 150% (50% increase)
Jump from 3 to 4: 80/60 = 133% (33% increase)
Jump from 4 to 5: 60/48 = 125% (25% increase)
Jump from 5 to 6: 48/40 = 120% (20% increase)
Jump from 6 to 7: 40/34.2 = 117% (17% increase)
These calculations are simply the inverse of what you did ("Jump from X to Y" is calculated as Y/X, rather than X/Y).
Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)
Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
Lyonheart of Lakshmi
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
You're probably right. I didn't really put much time into the theory of it all, I just did the math on a napkin at work during break. It's really not meant to be taken too seriously. The reason I inverted it is because I took the freedom to make the numbers increase because it looked "prettier" lol.
This is more of a boredom thread than anything.
Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
I have no spell to proc grellow.
I have no spells to proc grellow.
Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.
Edited, May 19th 2011 5:17pm by Fermion
This is more of a boredom thread than anything.
svlyons wrote:
Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)
Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
I have no spell to proc grellow.
I have no spells to proc grellow.
Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.
Edited, May 19th 2011 5:17pm by Fermion
75NIN, 75BLM, 75SCH, 75SAM, 64BRD, 41RDM, 37DNC, 37WHM, 37WAR
Fermion wrote:
I have no spell to proc grellow.
I have no spells to proc grellow.
Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.
I have no spells to proc grellow.
Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.
I don't know if one use is incorrect, or if they are both correct and one is simply preferred, or if both are correct and one is simply more common.
Which one is more common probably depends on the context. If some teenagers were talking about wanting to go to the mall, one of them might say, "But I have no car." He wouldn't say, "But I have no cars." In contrast, a salesman at a used car lot that has somehow completely sold out their stock would say, "I have no cars to sell" rather than "I have no car to sell." It has to do with the expectations in that context over whether someone could have more than one of something or if they typically only have one of that something.
So I would probably lean towards "I have no spells to proc grellow." Though I would probably use completely different wording altogether:
"I don't have a spell to proc grellow."
"I don't have spells to proc grellow."
"I don't have a spell that can proc grellow."
"I don't have spells that can proc grellow."
Lyonheart of Lakshmi
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
lvl 99 NIN WAR BST THF BLM SCH WHM
Cooking 100.0+3+3
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
Fermion wrote:
svlyons wrote:
Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)
Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
I have no spell to proc grellow.
I have no spells to proc grellow.
Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.
[quote=svlyons]
So I would probably lean towards "I have no spells to proc grellow." Though I would probably use completely different wording altogether:
"I don't have a spell to proc grellow."
"I don't have spells to proc grellow."
"I don't have a spell that can proc grellow."
"I don't have spells that can proc grellow."
Think gramatically its I don't have "any" spells to proc grellow. :P
I was bored lol
Interesting thread might have to take a look at that later when i get on
Edited, May 24th 2011 2:25pm by Darkzeru
Recent Visitors: 9
All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (9)