ATL-7 modified

[Hawk258]

Let me expand on the idea further.

2d10 vs 1d20.


With 1d20 you have a 5% chance of rolling anything

With 2d10
You have a 0% to roll a 1
1% to roll a 2 or 20
Your odds of rolling anything else go up 1% the closer you get to the middle with 11 having a 10% chance
12-10 9%
13-9 8%
14-8 7%
15-7 6%
16-6 5%
17-5 4%
18-4 3%
19-3 2%
20-2 1%

Same principle applies with 1d6 vs 3d6
My odds are 17% each roll of Getting 6 on 1d6

3d6 has .46% chance each roll to get 18

Meaning I have a 17% chance of rolling three 6's in 3 different rolls.

[dreicunan]

Okay you have studied odds in school right?
Now follow a long(sic).

I have, although I'm afraid that what you posted below may cause some people to question if you have done so.

Let me expand on the idea further.

2d10 vs 1d20.


With 1d20 you have a 5% chance of rolling anything

With 2d10
You have a 0% to roll a 1
1% to roll a 2 or 20
Your odds of rolling anything else go up 1% the closer you get to the middle with 11 having a 10% chance
12-10 9%
13-9 8%
14-8 7%
15-7 6%
16-6 5%
17-5 4%
18-4 3%
19-3 2%
20-2 1%

2d10 does not equal 1d20 when it comes to probabilities, because you have a different base die. 1d6 vs 3d6, however, has the same base die. Thus, when you roll 1d6 3 times, you are rolling 3d6. The proper comparison to the 1d6 three times versus 3d6 one time issue be would be rolling 3d10 versus 1d10 three times.

Same principle applies with 1d6 vs 3d6
My odds are 17% each roll of Getting 6 on 1d6

3d6 has .46% chance each roll to get 18

Meaning I have a 17% chance of rolling three 6's in 3 different rolls.

No, your odds of rolling a 6 three times in a row on 1d6, for a total of 18, are exactly the same as rolling all sixes on 3d6, for a total of 18.

If you doubt me, realize that you are arguing that your odds of rolling a 2 on a 1d2 three times in a row in a row are 50%, when they are actually 12.5% (I use 1d2 instead of a coin because coin flips are a bad example; there is actually a slight skewing due to other factors (unless you have the precision to make a truly perfect coin flip) to 51% whichever side was up when it was tossed. Incidentally, spinning a penny with a Lincoln memorial on its back is a great way to make money at a bar from people who don't know that there is an 80% change for it to land heads down due to weight distribution in the penny). So long as the dice are all honest dice, rolling 1d6 three times versus 3d6 one time is mathematically the same, with the exact same odds.

Of course, here the comparison is 1d6x10 three times versus 3d6x10+20. In this comparison, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 1d6x10 three times to match 3d6x10+20 for damage output. As I already noted, the ATL-7 wins out on economy of actions to damage if we are comparing aimed or aimed and called shots as well even if we accept your limitation of one shot every 3 actions while hooked up to a nuclear generator for the original.

Now, you may have situations where range might affect potential output in a battle (If someone with equal or superior speed is using an I-11 Long Gun and kiting you from 4000 ft, clearly the ATL-7 won't help you) or damage type (a variable laser versus chromium armor versus the ATL-7 which can't defeat it and thus is at half damage), but in pure mathhammer the only advantage a 1d6x10 laser is going to have over an ATL-7 is damage per e-clip. Don't forget that there other situations in which the ATL-7 clearly becomes an even bigger winner as well, such as a mystic knight getting their hands on one and doing 3d6x10+20 damage for 12 ppe and only needing a single action to charge the e-clip, thus being able to fire every other action!

[Hawk258]

1d6x10 three times versus 3d6x10+20. In this comparison, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 1d6x10 three times to match 3d6x10+20 for damage output

https://anydice.com/program/13a62

Here is where you seem to miss the fact.
My odds per roll is 1 in 6 of any number. Each time.
Giving each number a 17% chance to be rolled.

You have
<0.5% for a 3 or 18
<1.4% for 4 or 17
<2.8% for 5 or 16
<5% for 6 or 15
<7% for 7 or 14
<10% for 8 or 13
<12% for 9 or 12
12.5% for 10 or 11

Meaning "roughly"
66% for 8,9,10,11,12, 13.
16.67% for 3,4,5,6,7
16.67% for 14,15,16,17,18

Where as each roll of 1d6 is 16.67% of any number.

Which each roll is new, is not contingent on the last die or the next. Giving 1d6 the ability to be on the outer edges more often.

Each roll I want a 6 a 16.67% chance. Each roll
You want an 18 a. 0.46% chance.

The "average" works out over longer runs for 1d6
3d6 average happens each roll.

This is why 3d6 is used for stat rolls, "average" is common with occasional outliers being possible.

[dreicunan]

1d6x10 three times versus 3d6x10+20. In this comparison, it is IMPOSSIBLE for 1d6x10 three times to match 3d6x10+20 for damage output

https://anydice.com/program/13a62

Here is where you seem to miss the fact.
My odds per roll is 1 in 6 of any number. Each time.
Giving each number a 17% chance to be rolled.

You have
<0.5% for a 3 or 18
<1.4% for 4 or 17
<2.8% for 5 or 16
<5% for 6 or 15
<7% for 7 or 14
<10% for 8 or 13
<12% for 9 or 12
12.5% for 10 or 11

Meaning "roughly"
66% for 8,9,10,11,12, 13.
16.67% for 3,4,5,6,7
16.67% for 14,15,16,17,18

Where as each roll of 1d6 is 16.67% of any number.

Which each roll is new, is not contingent on the last die or the next. Giving 1d6 the ability to be on the outer edges more often.

Each roll I want a 6 a 16.67% chance. Each roll
You want an 18 a. 0.46% chance.

The "average" works out over longer runs for 1d6
3d6 average happens each roll.

This is why 3d6 is used for stat rolls, "average" is common with occasional outliers being possible.

Ok. Single roll. Your 1d6X10 damage has a 16.67% chance of doing 60 damage, and an 84.33% chance of doing 50 or less. With 3d6x10+20 I have a 0.46% of doing 50 damage, and a 99.54% chance of doing 60% or better. That means that you have a 0.00077% chance of out-damaging my weapon on a single roll. I like my chances.

Now, if you wanted to roll 3 times to try and get close to my damage output, you are back to the law of averages, and you have the exact same odds of damage over 3 rolls as I do with a 3d6x10 weapon on 1 roll. Your ability to be on the outer edges more often doesn't mean anything in practical terms.

If you really believe that the chance for max damage is the highest good, you should be using a 1d2x10 weapon. You'd have a 50% chance of max damage!

[Hawk258]

Yes If that 1d2x10 is flipped 9 times (equaling 18) with it's going to be 50 2 or 50 one. 50 I have a 50/50 shot of hitting max damage 9 times or 50% of one "each time" and while the law of average will balance the "long game" the odds of more heads is better. 50/50 each flip

3d6 does is "average each roll"

Example 9 flips, I did worse.

There is a "greater" opportunity for "max rolls" and "low rolls" than 3d6.

Meaning there are going to be opportunities to do greater damage to a single target.

There will be times it will do less, but, 16% of each roll for a 6 is better than .46% for 18 in the short run.

This is also why I play single deck blackjack at the casino

[Hawk258]

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/statis ... ge-numbers

The factor not being considered is "law of distribution" there isn't one.

In terms of "averages" vs "probability" 3d6 is worse off than 1d6 in the short game.

My odds of pulling an ace out of 13 (2 thru Ace) is better than you pulling 4 out of a deck in one try.

[dreicunan]

3d6 is not worse than 1d6. What you keep failing to realize is that short or long game, you are rolling a d6 3 times. Whether you do it all at once or one at a time over three actions makes no difference to the math. You end up with exactly the same odds of getting 18 (or any other combined number, 0.46%. You aren't remembering that when one rolls 3d6, each individual d6 has a 16.67% chance of being each number, yet as a group they still end up at 0.46% to hit 18. Or do you think that if I have a 4d6 weapon my odds of doing max damage improve if I roll each damage die individually? Because they don't!

And no, if you roll a 1d2 nine times you do not have a 50% chance of getting an 18. You have a 0.2% chance of hitting max damage 9 times and getting 18.

You've misunderstood the gamblers fallacy and how it applies in this situation.

[Hawk258]

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Where 3d6 has a 1:18 chance of rolling 18 in 1 roll

1d6 has a 17% chance each roll of rolling a 6.

If I lay out 52 cards by suit

If I chose 1 card from 1 suit 1:13 once to pull an ace

If i chose 2 cards (1 from each) from 2 different suit 1:26 for 2 aces

If I chose 3 cards (1 from each) from 3 suits 1:39 for 3 aces

If I chose 4 cards (1 from each) from 4 suits 1:52 (1 action)

Individual actions have better individual odds.

Take keno for example.

In the short run my odds of picking 1 number each game .
Vs multiples.

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

[dreicunan]

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

I deleted my first post, in which I asked you what the odds of rolling 18 if you roll 1d6 three times, when I saw that you wrote that a single result per action over 3 action is 1 in 6. That isn't how it works. The odds of an rolling a 6 for each individual action is 1/6, sure, but when you take 3 actions rolling a single die each time, the odds of rolling 3 sixes is exactly the same as rolling three dice at once. You DON'T have better odds of getting any particular result over time by rolling 1d6 three times in three actions as you do rolling 3d6 once for every 3 actions.

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Sure, each roll of 1d2 is independent, and also has 0% chance of resulting in an 18. In order to get 18, you need 9 results of 2, and for that to happen, you need to roll 1d2 9 times. That is what 9d2 means, roll 1d2 nine times, just like 3d6 means roll 1d6 3 times. Now, many people may roll all three dice at one rather than one at a time, but when it comes to the odds of getting a particular result, there is no difference in the math. In the same way, 1d6 has a 0% chance of resulting in an 18. To hit 18 with a d6, you need 3 results of 6.

The fact that distribution may not be equal over any given portion of a set is uttely immaterial to what the odds of a roll of the dice are. The odds are always the same.

The kind of argument you want to make about getting a higher chance of getting both the upper and lower result is about the difference between 1d20 and 2d10, or 4d6 and 2d12, or 3d4 and 2d6.

[Hawk258]

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

I deleted my first post, in which I asked you what the odds of rolling 18 if you roll 1d6 three times, when I saw that you wrote that a single result per action over 3 action is 1 in 6. That isn't how it works. The odds of an rolling a 6 for each individual action is 1/6, sure, but when you take 3 actions rolling a single die each time, the odds of rolling 3 sixes is exactly the same as rolling three dice at once. You DON'T have better odds of getting any particular result over time by rolling 1d6 three times in three actions as you do rolling 3d6 once for every 3 actions.

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Sure, each roll of 1d2 is independent, and also has 0% chance of resulting in an 18. In order to get 18, you need 9 results of 2, and for that to happen, you need to roll 1d2 9 times. That is what 9d2 means, roll 1d2 nine times, just like 3d6 means roll 1d6 3 times. Now, many people may roll all three dice at one rather than one at a time, but when it comes to the odds of getting a particular result, there is no difference in the math. In the same way, 1d6 has a 0% chance of resulting in an 18. To hit 18 with a d6, you need 3 results of 6.

The fact that distribution may not be equal over any given portion of a set is uttely immaterial to what the odds of a roll of the dice are. The odds are always the same.

The kind of argument you want to make about getting a higher chance of getting both the upper and lower result is about the difference between 1d20 and 2d10, or 4d6 and 2d12, or 3d4 and 2d6.

Okay.
True or false
Your odds of rolling three 6's in 1 action is 1:18 right?
You have 18 possible combinations in 1 action.

In 3 actions my odds are 1:6 every action.
1:6
1:6
1:6
I have 1 in 6 each separate action.
That doesn't change from 1 action to the next.

Who has the greater odds of rolling 3 6's?
1 action or 3?

My odds of choosing 1 ace from 13 cards in multiple actions is better than you getting 4 in 1 action.

In 1 action you getting a specific combination is dependent on each outcome happening.

In 3 actions each action is independently of the last and first.

Just because I roll a 6 last action doesn't mean I won't roll it again the next.

My "odds" are better per action.

In 1 action you have the same odds of rolling one 6 as I have.
The second 6 is 1 in 12
And the 3rd is 1 in 18.

At 3d6 if all you wanted was 0ne 6 your odds are 3:18 or 1:6

[dreicunan]

Spoiler:

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

I deleted my first post, in which I asked you what the odds of rolling 18 if you roll 1d6 three times, when I saw that you wrote that a single result per action over 3 action is 1 in 6. That isn't how it works. The odds of an rolling a 6 for each individual action is 1/6, sure, but when you take 3 actions rolling a single die each time, the odds of rolling 3 sixes is exactly the same as rolling three dice at once. You DON'T have better odds of getting any particular result over time by rolling 1d6 three times in three actions as you do rolling 3d6 once for every 3 actions.

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Sure, each roll of 1d2 is independent, and also has 0% chance of resulting in an 18. In order to get 18, you need 9 results of 2, and for that to happen, you need to roll 1d2 9 times. That is what 9d2 means, roll 1d2 nine times, just like 3d6 means roll 1d6 3 times. Now, many people may roll all three dice at one rather than one at a time, but when it comes to the odds of getting a particular result, there is no difference in the math. In the same way, 1d6 has a 0% chance of resulting in an 18. To hit 18 with a d6, you need 3 results of 6.

The fact that distribution may not be equal over any given portion of a set is uttely immaterial to what the odds of a roll of the dice are. The odds are always the same.

The kind of argument you want to make about getting a higher chance of getting both the upper and lower result is about the difference between 1d20 and 2d10, or 4d6 and 2d12, or 3d4 and 2d6.

Okay.
True or false
Your odds of rolling three 6's in 1 action is 1:18 right?
You have 18 possible combinations in 1 action.

In 3 actions my odds are 1:6 every action.
1:6
1:6
1:6
I have 1 in 6 each separate action.
That doesn't change from 1 action to the next.

Who has the greater odds of rolling 3 6's?
1 action or 3?

My odds of choosing 1 ace from 13 cards in multiple actions is better than you getting 4 in 1 action.

False. Your odds of rolling three sixes on 3 dice in one action is 1/216. Your odds of rolling 3 sixes on 1 die rolled 3 times is also 1/216. 1:6*1:6*1:6 = 1/216. It doesn't matter how many actions it takes to get there. All that matters is that 3 rolls of 1d6 are made, either all at the same time or separately.

The same thing applies to getting an ace from thirteen cards. Of course the odds of getting a 1 on 1d13 are higher than getting a 4 on 4d13. But the odds of rolling 1d13 4 times and getting a 4 are identical to rolling 4d13 and getting a 4. You've engaged in the same misunderstanding, or misapplication, of the gambler's fallacy. Yes, on any roll of 1d6 you have a 1:6 chance of getting a 6. You can have rolled a 1 the previous 5 times. Your odds of rolling a 1 again on the sixth roll are still 1d6. However, the odds of rolling six 1s in a row are 1 in 46,656. That is also the odds of rolling 6 on 6d6. Probability doesn't care whether you roll your dice one at a time or all at once. It always works the same way.

And that is why a 1d6x10 weapon that can fire every melee action has the same damage potential and the same probability of any given result as a 3d6x10 weapon that can fire every 3 melee actions. That is why if you hook the weapons up to a nuclear generator, the 1d6x10 laser that fire every melee action will not outperform the 3d6x10+20 atl-7m that fire every 3 actions. Oh, sure, it might do so at some limited part of a set, but as the number of shots grows you will inevitably approach the mean, and 105 every 3 actions loses to 125 every three actions.

[Hawk258]

No 3d6 in 1 roll your odds are 1:18 for 3 6's.

1 action 1 die 6 sides 1 outcome 1:6
1 in 6 for a 6
0:6 for 2
0:6 for 3


1 action 3 dice 18 combinations 1 outcome. 1:18

[dreicunan]

There aren't 18 combinations of 3d6. There are 216. If you still don't believe me, here is a list of them. Here is another presentation of the same information.

Once again, it doesn't matter if you roll them one at a time over the course of three actions or all at once. There are also 216 possible combinations of the results of rolling 1d6 three times. The odds are the same.

[Curbludgeon]

With these notions of dice being rolled sequentially being subject to different measurement than those rolled simultaneously, I'm starting to get a strong Time Cube vibe.

[Hawk258]

Each action is new.
1 roll of 1d6 is 1 in 6 for any number.
Same with the next action
And the next.


3d6 in 1 action
Has 1 in 6 for 6
Has 1 in 12 for a second 6
Has 1 in 18 for a third 6
In a single action.

If you roll again the odds are the same.

1 action is 1 in 6 for a single 6
No matter if I roll 1d6 or 3d6.

Each roll is "new".

Just like a penny
1 coin 1 flip is 50/50 for either
2 coin 1 flip 25% for both heads 50% for 1 of each and 25% for both tails

A new action is independent of the last or next.

3d6 and 1d6 have the same odds of rolling one 6 each roll.

[Mack]

Hawk, please take a look at the link you provided:

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

See how it says the odds of rolling 18 on 3D6 is 0.46%... that's 1/216.

[Hawk258]

Hawk, please take a look at the link you provided:

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

See how it says the odds of rolling 18 on 3D6 is 0.46%... that's 1/216.

Okay you are right.

But that doesn't change the fact 1d6 each single roll is 1 in 6 of getting a 6. And is independent of the next roll or last and is 1 in 6 repeatable

[Killer Cyborg]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

Good point.

And not everybody who sees their buddy with 100 MDC get one-shotted is going to KNOW that the ATL-7 only gets the one shot before reloading.
For all they know, it could fire all day and all night without reloading.

For that matter, if the entire party has big unfamiliar-looking weapons, the enemy might not know that the ATL-7's damage is really unusual.

There's some great potential for bluffing there, kinda like when Lewis & Clark took the Girandoni air rifle with them, and all the natives saw was a silent, deadly rifle that could fire an apparently infinite number of shots... and for all they knew, the rest of the rifles in the party could too.

[Blue_Lion]

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Where 3d6 has a 1:18 chance of rolling 18 in 1 roll

1d6 has a 17% chance each roll of rolling a 6.

If I lay out 52 cards by suit

If I chose 1 card from 1 suit 1:13 once to pull an ace

If i chose 2 cards (1 from each) from 2 different suit 1:26 for 2 aces

If I chose 3 cards (1 from each) from 3 suits 1:39 for 3 aces

If I chose 4 cards (1 from each) from 4 suits 1:52 (1 action)

Individual actions have better individual odds.

Take keno for example.

In the short run my odds of picking 1 number each game .
Vs multiples.

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

Hate to break it to you it is not the number of moving parts but the times a random number is generated with a die(that is singular for a reason). Rolling 3 dice at once means a random number was generated 3 times(each die generated its own random number), rolling 1 die 3 times means a random number was generated 3 times. Each die in the same roll generates a random number independent of the other dice.

IE if I roll 5 million d2 each die has a 50% chance of landing on either side same as if I rolled 1d2 5 million times each roll has a 50% of landing on either side. Rolling multiple dice does not change the odds of any given result, but speeds up the game and reduces the chance of 1 flawed die completely throwing off results. Statistically the results would be towards the middle with half the die coming up heads and half tails, for both methods the further from this point the less likely something is to happen.

If you roll 3d6 the odds of die A getting a 6 is one in 6, the odds of die b getting a 6 is 1 in 6 and the odds of die c getting a 6 is 1 in 6. If you roll 1d6 3 times the odds of getting a 6 on the 1st roll is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the second is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the third is 1 in 6. So the odds do not change per roll, the reduction comes from the chance of all them landing of any given combo coming up the more combos that can give a result the more likely it is to happen.


https://www.algebra.com/algebra/homewor ... 84623.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/databa ... matt1.html
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_o ... s_in_a_row


If you roll 1 die to times if one of those times you rolled a 6 (1/6) then 5/6 of that 1/6 chance the time the other die was not a 6.


If rolling 1 die gets you better odds than rolling 3 of the same type of dice then the die is flawed or loaded and should not be used in game.

[Killer Cyborg]

1d6x10 averages 35. 3d6x10+20 averages 125. So if you hook up both the atl-7 and any 1d6x10 laser to a nuclear generator, even if we say that it takes 3 actions per shot for the atl-7 the way you do it, the atl-7 always wins. The only metric by which it doesn't is damage per e-clip, which is ignoring the point. The weapon is meant to be an anti-armor weapon delivering as much power as possible in a single shot. It isn't trying to be efficient with the e-clip!

Yup.

Also, for the "overpowered" atl-7 arguments, let's not forget the burst rules that existed when it was published, and any weapon with standard rate of fire could burn through an entire clip or magazine to get x10 damage.

Yup!
The difference is that the ATL-7 did it in a single shot, which meant that it could be Aimed or Called, and it only took one attack.
That's power creep for you: take the high-end of what other stuff can do, then bump it up a bit.

So the C-27 could do 6d6x10 on a full clip burst (and only two actions), or 6d6x5 on a long burst (only one attack). The C-12 could do 4d6x10 on a full clip burst. The NG-P7 could do 1d4x100 by the rules as written (it had rate of fire standard). And of course the infamous JA-11, doing 4d6x10 out to 4000 ft with a full clip burst (use short clips.

Not exactly.
I mean, when the RMB came out, it looked that way for the most part... but the C-27 and NG-P7 were Heavy Energy Weapons, and it ultimately came out that they weren't supposed to use the standard Burst/Spray rules.
The C-12's 4d6 damage was the damage for a burst of 5 shots--it only did 2d6 MD per single shot, and the burst setting meant that it couldn't fire bursts/sprays described on p. 34.
The JA-11's laser was single-shot only, so if you wanted to rip off a clip you had to use the Ion Beam, which was 3d6 per single shot. So you could spend 2 attacks to inflict 3d6x10 MD.
And THAT level of firepower is a couple notches below the ATL-7, which is why the ATL-7 is overpowered.
Also, I think that the ATL-7 was only introduced after CB1 nerfed the Full Mag Burst damage to x7 instead of x10.

The advantage of an atl-7 was always entirely in its ability to do 3d6x10+20 on an aimed (or especially aimed and called) shot and the extra bonuses to strike that allowed. It'a economy of action at the time was actually identical to the economy of action you got got using 2 action full clip bursta and then taking one action to reload.

I agree that was the base for it.
But again, that's power creep--take the best, and make it a little better.

[Blue_Lion]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

Good point.

And not everybody who sees their buddy with 100 MDC get one-shotted is going to KNOW that the ATL-7 only gets the one shot before reloading.
For all they know, it could fire all day and all night without reloading.

For that matter, if the entire party has big unfamiliar-looking weapons, the enemy might not know that the ATL-7's damage is really unusual.

There's some great potential for bluffing there, kinda like when Lewis & Clark took the Girandoni air rifle with them, and all the natives saw was a silent, deadly rifle that could fire an apparently infinite number of shots... and for all they knew, the rest of the rifles in the party could too.

If I do not think the party knows what a atl-7 is I do not tell them that. I just tell them the bad guy has some big weapon you never seen and it just aporised some ones armor in 1 shot. When I do not think a party should know what something is I am vague so the players can't guess at it with player knowledge. (add in all the home brewed stuff I use and it ensures they spend the time to find out what something new was instead of just assuming they know.)

[Hawk258]

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Where 3d6 has a 1:18 chance of rolling 18 in 1 roll

1d6 has a 17% chance each roll of rolling a 6.

If I lay out 52 cards by suit

If I chose 1 card from 1 suit 1:13 once to pull an ace

If i chose 2 cards (1 from each) from 2 different suit 1:26 for 2 aces

If I chose 3 cards (1 from each) from 3 suits 1:39 for 3 aces

If I chose 4 cards (1 from each) from 4 suits 1:52 (1 action)

Individual actions have better individual odds.

Take keno for example.

In the short run my odds of picking 1 number each game .
Vs multiples.

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

Hate to break it to you it is not the number of moving parts but the times a random number is generated with a die(that is singular for a reason). Rolling 3 dice at once means a random number was generated 3 times(each die generated its own random number), rolling 1 die 3 times means a random number was generated 3 times. Each die in the same roll generates a random number independent of the other dice.

IE if I roll 5 million d2 each die has a 50% chance of landing on either side same as if I rolled 1d2 5 million times each roll has a 50% of landing on either side. Rolling multiple dice does not change the odds of any given result, but speeds up the game and reduces the chance of 1 flawed die completely throwing off results. Statistically the results would be towards the middle with half the die coming up heads and half tails, for both methods the further from this point the less likely something is to happen.

If you roll 3d6 the odds of die A getting a 6 is one in 6, the odds of die b getting a 6 is 1 in 6 and the odds of die c getting a 6 is 1 in 6. If you roll 1d6 3 times the odds of getting a 6 on the 1st roll is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the second is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the third is 1 in 6. So the odds do not change per roll, the reduction comes from the chance of all them landing of any given combo coming up the more combos that can give a result the more likely it is to happen.


https://www.algebra.com/algebra/homewor ... 84623.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/databa ... matt1.html
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_o ... s_in_a_row


If you roll 1 die to times if one of those times you rolled a 6 (1/6) then 5/6 of that 1/6 chance the time the other die was not a 6.


If rolling 1 die gets you better odds than rolling 3 of the same type of dice then the die is flawed or loaded and should not be used in game.

I will hit a 6 17% of the time
Vs
3d6 hitting 18 .46%.

Roll for roll.

Meaning I will hit critical damage more often.

As the atl-7 is limited to the frequency it can shoot.

Which at 1 attack in 3, while "impressive" in a single shot, its 60% going to be between 100 md and 150 md.
Add in an "aimed/called shot" that's 4 actions.

At 3 actions that is 33.3 to 50 md per action

At 4 that is 25 md to 37.5 md.

Where as

At 1d6x10 and 3 attacks with an equal opportunity of 1 to 6
10 to 60 md each attack (35 md) 30 md to 180 md (105 average)

At 4 attacks at 10 to 60 md for a total of 40 to 240 md (140 averaged total)

That average goes up each time I roll 4 or higher in 3 or 4 attacks.

While it "average damage" each shot a 1d6x10 weapon is 50% more likely to dish out greater damage roll to roll vs 3d6.in 1 roll over 3 or 4 actions.

Making the ATL-7 worthless in long term battle against npc's with more than 300 MDC or resistant to energy or lasers.

[Blue_Lion]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)

If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

[dreicunan]

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Where 3d6 has a 1:18 chance of rolling 18 in 1 roll

1d6 has a 17% chance each roll of rolling a 6.

If I lay out 52 cards by suit

If I chose 1 card from 1 suit 1:13 once to pull an ace

If i chose 2 cards (1 from each) from 2 different suit 1:26 for 2 aces

If I chose 3 cards (1 from each) from 3 suits 1:39 for 3 aces

If I chose 4 cards (1 from each) from 4 suits 1:52 (1 action)

Individual actions have better individual odds.

Take keno for example.

In the short run my odds of picking 1 number each game .
Vs multiples.

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

Hate to break it to you it is not the number of moving parts but the times a random number is generated with a die(that is singular for a reason). Rolling 3 dice at once means a random number was generated 3 times(each die generated its own random number), rolling 1 die 3 times means a random number was generated 3 times. Each die in the same roll generates a random number independent of the other dice.

IE if I roll 5 million d2 each die has a 50% chance of landing on either side same as if I rolled 1d2 5 million times each roll has a 50% of landing on either side. Rolling multiple dice does not change the odds of any given result, but speeds up the game and reduces the chance of 1 flawed die completely throwing off results. Statistically the results would be towards the middle with half the die coming up heads and half tails, for both methods the further from this point the less likely something is to happen.

If you roll 3d6 the odds of die A getting a 6 is one in 6, the odds of die b getting a 6 is 1 in 6 and the odds of die c getting a 6 is 1 in 6. If you roll 1d6 3 times the odds of getting a 6 on the 1st roll is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the second is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the third is 1 in 6. So the odds do not change per roll, the reduction comes from the chance of all them landing of any given combo coming up the more combos that can give a result the more likely it is to happen.


https://www.algebra.com/algebra/homewor ... 84623.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/databa ... matt1.html
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_o ... s_in_a_row


If you roll 1 die to times if one of those times you rolled a 6 (1/6) then 5/6 of that 1/6 chance the time the other die was not a 6.


If rolling 1 die gets you better odds than rolling 3 of the same type of dice then the die is flawed or loaded and should not be used in game.

I will hit a 6 17% of the time
Vs
3d6 hitting 18 .46%.

Roll for roll.

Meaning I will hit critical damage more often.

As the atl-7 is limited to the frequency it can shoot.

Which at 1 attack in 3, while "impressive" in a single shot, its 60% going to be between 100 md and 150 md.
Add in an "aimed/called shot" that's 4 actions.

At 3 actions that is 33.3 to 50 md per action

At 4 that is 25 md to 37.5 md.

Where as

At 1d6x10 and 3 attacks with an equal opportunity of 1 to 6
10 to 60 md each attack (35 md) 30 md to 180 md (105 average)

At 4 attacks at 10 to 60 md for a total of 40 to 240 md (140 average)

That average goes up each time I roll 4 or higher in 3 or 4 attacks.

Hawk, come on man. Rolling a 6 for damage on 1d6 does not result in critical damage. A critical strike is a result of the strike roll, not the damage roll. Crits are equally likely for both weapons over time.

But you need to compare apples to apples. If you are doing an aimed, called shot with an ATL-7, then do it with the other weapon as well. That is 3d6x10+20 every five actions (per RUE, aimed, called shots,take 3 actions, plus two to reload). An aimed, called shot with a 1d6x10 weapon takes 3 actions. So, to make the comparison easy, we give each weapon 15 actions. After those fifteen, the ATL-7 has fired 3 times for 9d6x10+60 damage with an AVERAGE of 375 and MINIMUM of 150, while the other weapon has fired five times for 5d6x10 damage, with a MAXIMUM damage of 300 and an AVERAGE damage of 175.

In fact, even if the player with the 1d6x10 weapon is using a loaded die, an ATL-7 using honest dice will STILL outdamage it in the long run while making aimed, called shots. Heck it would do so even if one out of every five shots with the 1d6x10 weapon using loaded dice were a critical hit, because the max damage for the five shots would be 360, still falling short of the average of the ATL-7.

[Hawk258]

No... that's if I flip 9d2. I am flipping 1d2 9 times each flip is independent. Which is not necessarily distributed equally.

Where 3d6 has a 1:18 chance of rolling 18 in 1 roll

1d6 has a 17% chance each roll of rolling a 6.

If I lay out 52 cards by suit

If I chose 1 card from 1 suit 1:13 once to pull an ace

If i chose 2 cards (1 from each) from 2 different suit 1:26 for 2 aces

If I chose 3 cards (1 from each) from 3 suits 1:39 for 3 aces

If I chose 4 cards (1 from each) from 4 suits 1:52 (1 action)

Individual actions have better individual odds.

Take keno for example.

In the short run my odds of picking 1 number each game .
Vs multiples.

Just because a number appears in 1 game doesn't mean it will or won't be the next time. The odds are still 1 in 4.

In a "single" outcome a combination sucks
Where as
A single result per action (1 result in 6) over 3 actions is 1:6

The more moving parts, the greater the variables and more specific an out come is expected the lower the odds per action.

Hate to break it to you it is not the number of moving parts but the times a random number is generated with a die(that is singular for a reason). Rolling 3 dice at once means a random number was generated 3 times(each die generated its own random number), rolling 1 die 3 times means a random number was generated 3 times. Each die in the same roll generates a random number independent of the other dice.

IE if I roll 5 million d2 each die has a 50% chance of landing on either side same as if I rolled 1d2 5 million times each roll has a 50% of landing on either side. Rolling multiple dice does not change the odds of any given result, but speeds up the game and reduces the chance of 1 flawed die completely throwing off results. Statistically the results would be towards the middle with half the die coming up heads and half tails, for both methods the further from this point the less likely something is to happen.

If you roll 3d6 the odds of die A getting a 6 is one in 6, the odds of die b getting a 6 is 1 in 6 and the odds of die c getting a 6 is 1 in 6. If you roll 1d6 3 times the odds of getting a 6 on the 1st roll is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the second is 1 in 6, the odds of getting a 6 on the third is 1 in 6. So the odds do not change per roll, the reduction comes from the chance of all them landing of any given combo coming up the more combos that can give a result the more likely it is to happen.


https://www.algebra.com/algebra/homewor ... 84623.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/databa ... matt1.html
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/56502.html
http://www.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_o ... s_in_a_row


If you roll 1 die to times if one of those times you rolled a 6 (1/6) then 5/6 of that 1/6 chance the time the other die was not a 6.


If rolling 1 die gets you better odds than rolling 3 of the same type of dice then the die is flawed or loaded and should not be used in game.

I will hit a 6 17% of the time
Vs
3d6 hitting 18 .46%.

Roll for roll.

Meaning I will hit critical damage more often.

As the atl-7 is limited to the frequency it can shoot.

Which at 1 attack in 3, while "impressive" in a single shot, its 60% going to be between 100 md and 150 md.
Add in an "aimed/called shot" that's 4 actions.

At 3 actions that is 33.3 to 50 md per action

At 4 that is 25 md to 37.5 md.

Where as

At 1d6x10 and 3 attacks with an equal opportunity of 1 to 6
10 to 60 md each attack (35 md) 30 md to 180 md (105 average)

At 4 attacks at 10 to 60 md for a total of 40 to 240 md (140 average)

That average goes up each time I roll 4 or higher in 3 or 4 attacks.

Hawk, come on man. Rolling a 6 for damage on 1d6 does not result in critical damage. A critical strike is a result of the strike roll, not the damage roll. Crits are equally likely for both weapons over time.

But you need to compare apples to apples. If you are doing an aimed, called shot with an ATL-7, then do it with the other weapon as well. That is 3d6x10+20 every five actions (per RUE, aimed, called shots,take 3 actions, plus two to reload). An aimed, called shot with a 1d6x10 weapon takes 3 actions. So, to make the comparison easy, we give each weapon 15 actions. After those fifteen, the ATL-7 has fired 3 times for 9d6x10+60 damage with an AVERAGE of 375 and MINIMUM of 150, while the other weapon has fired five times for 5d6x10 damage, with a MAXIMUM damage of 300 and an AVERAGE damage of 175.

In fact, even if the player with the 1d6x10 weapon is using a loaded die, an ATL-7 using honest dice will STILL outdamage it in the long run while making aimed, called shots. Heck it would do so even if one out of every five shots with the 1d6x10 weapon using loaded dice were a critical hit, because the max damage for the five shots would be 360, still falling short of the average of the ATL-7.

Excuse me "maximum damage"

[Hawk258]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)




If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

No because my odds of rolling a 6 in an action is 17% (roughly)

Every new roll that 17% doesn't change because I rolled a 6 on the last roll.

It will be 17% each roll regardless of past performance.

And I meant "max normal damage"

[Killer Cyborg]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

Good point.

And not everybody who sees their buddy with 100 MDC get one-shotted is going to KNOW that the ATL-7 only gets the one shot before reloading.
For all they know, it could fire all day and all night without reloading.

For that matter, if the entire party has big unfamiliar-looking weapons, the enemy might not know that the ATL-7's damage is really unusual.

There's some great potential for bluffing there, kinda like when Lewis & Clark took the Girandoni air rifle with them, and all the natives saw was a silent, deadly rifle that could fire an apparently infinite number of shots... and for all they knew, the rest of the rifles in the party could too.

If I do not think the party knows what a atl-7 is I do not tell them that. I just tell them the bad guy has some big weapon you never seen and it just aporised some ones armor in 1 shot. When I do not think a party should know what something is I am vague so the players can't guess at it with player knowledge. (add in all the home brewed stuff I use and it ensures they spend the time to find out what something new was instead of just assuming they know.)

Right.

I've used the Recognize Weapon Quality roll before, to see if somebody recognizes a weapon in that kind of situation... but they have to have a decent chance of having heard of the thing.
Most people in most of the world beyond South America (or, really, just PARTS of South America) will have a 0% chance of having heard of an ATL-7, much less be able to recognize one and know that it only holds one shot.

[Hawk258]

Don't dismiss the effect on role-playing the ATL-7 brings to the table. Anyone (PC or NPC) that recognizes it in their opponent's hands is going to behave differently.

And now *you* understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all... your fault, my fault, nobody's fault... it won't matter - I'm gonna blow your head off. No matter what else happens, no matter who gets killed I'm gonna blow your head off.

Good point.

And not everybody who sees their buddy with 100 MDC get one-shotted is going to KNOW that the ATL-7 only gets the one shot before reloading.
For all they know, it could fire all day and all night without reloading.

For that matter, if the entire party has big unfamiliar-looking weapons, the enemy might not know that the ATL-7's damage is really unusual.

There's some great potential for bluffing there, kinda like when Lewis & Clark took the Girandoni air rifle with them, and all the natives saw was a silent, deadly rifle that could fire an apparently infinite number of shots... and for all they knew, the rest of the rifles in the party could too.

If I do not think the party knows what a atl-7 is I do not tell them that. I just tell them the bad guy has some big weapon you never seen and it just aporised some ones armor in 1 shot. When I do not think a party should know what something is I am vague so the players can't guess at it with player knowledge. (add in all the home brewed stuff I use and it ensures they spend the time to find out what something new was instead of just assuming they know.)

Right.

I've used the Recognize Weapon Quality roll before, to see if somebody recognizes a weapon in that kind of situation... but they have to have a decent chance of having heard of the thing.
Most people in most of the world beyond South America (or, really, just PARTS of South America) will have a 0% chance of having heard of an ATL-7, much less be able to recognize one and know that it only holds one shot.

Still, that "one shot" advantage goes out the door once the shot is fired.

Besides the fact it isn't exactly the noisy cricket. This thing is rather large and is going to attract notice. It "may prevent combat" but when it's time to put your money where your mouth is, I wouldn't want to be the guy packing it.

Because like i said, I would scrap the atl-7 if the GM gave it to me. Then ask "are you trying to get me killed?"

[Blue_Lion]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)




If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

No because my odds of rolling a 6 in an action is 17% (roughly)

Every new roll that 17% doesn't change because I rolled a 6 on the last roll.

It will be 17% each roll regardless of past performance.

And I meant "max normal damage"

Again you are wrong.

Each die has a 17% chance to roll a 6. The fact that you rolled a 6 with another die does not affect the odds of any other die even in the same roll. You are confusing odds of a combination for odds per roll.

If I roll 3d6 die A has a 17% chance of rolling a 6, die B has a 17% of rolling a 6 and die C has a 17% of a 6, the fact that more than one die is rolled does not affect the chance that any one die rolls a 6.

If I roll 1d6 3 times first roll has a 17% of rolling a 6 second roll has a 17% and the 3rd has a 17% of rolling a 6.

Each individual instance a random number is generated the odds of a 6 comming up are the same, reardless if you generate it 3 random numbers at once or 3 separate instances of 1 random number.


The odds of rolling 2 6s in a row are the same as rolling 12 on 2d6. If the first die rolls a 6 there is a 87% that the second die will not roll a 6.

When you use multple random generators weather in tandom or separate times you multiple the chances of something happening by each random generator. IE if you roll 1d6 two times the odds of rolling a 12 are (1/6)(1/6) if roll 2d6 the odds of getting a 12 are (1/6)(1/6).

The odds do not change by wasting time with more rolls.


(I would recommend you read the information on how to calculate the odds of multiple rolls I posted instead of making mathematically flawed statements.)

[Hawk258]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)




If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

No because my odds of rolling a 6 in an action is 17% (roughly)

Every new roll that 17% doesn't change because I rolled a 6 on the last roll.

It will be 17% each roll regardless of past performance.

And I meant "max normal damage"

Again you are wrong.

Each die has a 17% chance to roll a 6. The fact that you rolled a 6 with another die does not affect the odds of any other die even in the same roll. You are confusing odds of a combination for odds per roll.

If I roll 3d6 die A has a 17% chance of rolling a 6, die B has a 17% of rolling a 6 and die C has a 17% of a 6, the fact that more than one die is rolled does not affect the chance that any one die rolls a 6.

If I roll 1d6 3 times first roll has a 17% of rolling a 6 second roll has a 17% and the 3rd has a 17% of rolling a 6.

Each individual instance a random number is generated the odds of a 6 comming up are the same, reardless if you generate it 3 random numbers at once or 3 separate instances of 1 random number.


The odds of rolling 2 6s in a row are the same as rolling 12 on 2d6. If the first die rolls a 6 there is a 87% that the second die will not roll a 6.

When you use multple random generators weather in tandom or separate times you multiple the chances of something happening by each random generator. IE if you roll 1d6 two times the odds of rolling a 12 are (1/6)(1/6) if roll 2d6 the odds of getting a 12 are (1/6)(1/6).

The odds do not change by wasting time with more rolls.


(I would recommend you read the information on how to calculate the odds of multiple rolls I posted instead of making mathematically flawed statements.)

Each roll is independent of the last and why 3d6 has .46% of rolling an 18.

Each "individual roll"

17% to roll a 6 1d6
2.78% to roll a 12 on 2d6
0.46% to roll an 18 on 3d6

EACH ROLL

Past performance is not a consistent measure of future performance in a random occurrence.

[Blue_Lion]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)




If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

No because my odds of rolling a 6 in an action is 17% (roughly)

Every new roll that 17% doesn't change because I rolled a 6 on the last roll.

It will be 17% each roll regardless of past performance.

And I meant "max normal damage"

Again you are wrong.

Each die has a 17% chance to roll a 6. The fact that you rolled a 6 with another die does not affect the odds of any other die even in the same roll. You are confusing odds of a combination for odds per roll.

If I roll 3d6 die A has a 17% chance of rolling a 6, die B has a 17% of rolling a 6 and die C has a 17% of a 6, the fact that more than one die is rolled does not affect the chance that any one die rolls a 6.

If I roll 1d6 3 times first roll has a 17% of rolling a 6 second roll has a 17% and the 3rd has a 17% of rolling a 6.

Each individual instance a random number is generated the odds of a 6 comming up are the same, reardless if you generate it 3 random numbers at once or 3 separate instances of 1 random number.


The odds of rolling 2 6s in a row are the same as rolling 12 on 2d6. If the first die rolls a 6 there is a 87% that the second die will not roll a 6.

When you use multple random generators weather in tandom or separate times you multiple the chances of something happening by each random generator. IE if you roll 1d6 two times the odds of rolling a 12 are (1/6)(1/6) if roll 2d6 the odds of getting a 12 are (1/6)(1/6).

The odds do not change by wasting time with more rolls.


(I would recommend you read the information on how to calculate the odds of multiple rolls I posted instead of making mathematically flawed statements.)

Each roll is independent of the last and why 3d6 has .46% of rolling an 18.

Each "individual roll"

17% to roll a 6 1d6
2.78% to roll a 12 on 2d6
0.46% to roll an 18 on 3d6

EACH ROLL

Each die has a 17% chance of rolling a 6 regardless of the results.

To roll a 6 or more on 2d6 has odds (1/2)(1/2)

So to roll 6 on 1 die has a 17% (1/6)
To roll two 6s rolling 1d6 two times is a 2.7% (1/6)(1/6)
To roll three 6s rolling 1d6 three times the odds are .46% (1/6)(1/6)(1/6)


There is a difference between odds per die and odds per combo. I do not understand why this is hard concept for you to understand.

Each die has a 1/6 chance to roll a 6.
If you roll 100d6 each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6.
If you roll 1d6 100 time each roll has a 1/6 to land on a 6.

So the odds of getting a 6 are the same per random number generated regardless if the individual numbers generated at one at a time or in a batch.
The odds of getting a total number are based on the number of combinations that add up to vs the number of combos possible.
The odds to do generate a combination do not change because you roll 1 die at a time.


Basically the odds of getting any total with random number generation are the same reguadless if you generate the random numbers in a batch or 1 at a time.


(statistics of probability are based on math and when it comes to dice easy to prove assuming equal chance of all sides landing. In real life many dice have bias to roll 1 number more than another so are not truly random. )

[Hawk258]

False comparison much.
There is only a 5% chance of normal critical. Natural 20 on a d20.

The odds of you getting 18 by rolling 1d6 three times is the same as doing it I 1 roll of 3d6
The odds of any d6 in the roll of 3d6 rolling a 6 are the same as any of the three rolls of 1d6 rolling a 6. (each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 regardless of how it was rolled.)




If the ATL-7 is using carefully aimed shot then for a fair comparison you should be doing the same. That means in the time a ATL-7 inflicts 1 aimed shot for 3d6X10 you could do two aimed shots at 1d6X10. (you are down)

Or compare 1 normal attacks from the atl-7 to three normal attacks from the 1d6X10 weapon. (you are down because of the +20.)


And compare average of the two or 60% of two not the average to 60%. If the average of 1d6X10 is 35 then the average of 3 shots would be 105. While the average damage of a atl-7 would be 125. My that looks mighty one sided to the single big attack.

No because my odds of rolling a 6 in an action is 17% (roughly)

Every new roll that 17% doesn't change because I rolled a 6 on the last roll.

It will be 17% each roll regardless of past performance.

And I meant "max normal damage"

Again you are wrong.

Each die has a 17% chance to roll a 6. The fact that you rolled a 6 with another die does not affect the odds of any other die even in the same roll. You are confusing odds of a combination for odds per roll.

If I roll 3d6 die A has a 17% chance of rolling a 6, die B has a 17% of rolling a 6 and die C has a 17% of a 6, the fact that more than one die is rolled does not affect the chance that any one die rolls a 6.

If I roll 1d6 3 times first roll has a 17% of rolling a 6 second roll has a 17% and the 3rd has a 17% of rolling a 6.

Each individual instance a random number is generated the odds of a 6 comming up are the same, reardless if you generate it 3 random numbers at once or 3 separate instances of 1 random number.


The odds of rolling 2 6s in a row are the same as rolling 12 on 2d6. If the first die rolls a 6 there is a 87% that the second die will not roll a 6.

When you use multple random generators weather in tandom or separate times you multiple the chances of something happening by each random generator. IE if you roll 1d6 two times the odds of rolling a 12 are (1/6)(1/6) if roll 2d6 the odds of getting a 12 are (1/6)(1/6).

The odds do not change by wasting time with more rolls.


(I would recommend you read the information on how to calculate the odds of multiple rolls I posted instead of making mathematically flawed statements.)

Each roll is independent of the last and why 3d6 has .46% of rolling an 18.

Each "individual roll"

17% to roll a 6 1d6
2.78% to roll a 12 on 2d6
0.46% to roll an 18 on 3d6

EACH ROLL

Each die has a 17% chance of rolling a 6 regardless of the results.

To roll a 6 or more on 2d6 has odds (1/2)(1/2)

So to roll 6 on 1 die has a 17% (1/6)
To roll two 6s rolling 1d6 two times is a 2.7% (1/6)(1/6)
To roll three 6s rolling 1d6 three times the odds are .46% (1/6)(1/6)(1/6)


There is a difference between odds per die and odds per combo. I do not understand why this is hard concept for you to understand.

Each die has a 1/6 chance to roll a 6.
If you roll 100d6 each die has a 1/6 chance to land on a 6.
If you roll 1d6 100 time each roll has a 1/6 to land on a 6.

So the odds of getting a 6 are the same per random number generated regardless if the individual numbers generated at one at a time or in a batch.
The odds of getting a total number are based on the number of combinations that add up to vs the number of combos possible.
The odds to do generate a combination do not change because you roll 1 die at a time.


Basically the odds of getting any total with random number generation are the same reguadless if you generate the random numbers in a batch or 1 at a time.


(statistics of probability are based on math and when it comes to dice easy to prove assuming equal chance of all sides landing. In real life many dice have bias to roll 1 number more than another so are not truly random. )

I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

[Hawk258]

To put the conversation back fully on the ATL-7
Here is why the ATL-7 (unmodified) is worthless.

Durability: glass cannon
Range: a joke
Damage: mediocre
Rate of fire: horrible
Payload: total disaster
Usage: limited especially against beings/armor resistant to energy and lasers
Effectiveness against high mdc beings/armor: not very

Just as likely to get you into a fight as prevent one, but won't do much to end it.

An anti-tank weapon that doesn't kill tanks.

I wouldn't give it to my Ex-wife.

[dreicunan]

I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?

[Blue_Lion]

I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

You are based off a flawed premise. If it is limited to 1 outcome then 3d6 wins because 1d6 can not on its best rolls match the average of 3d6.

Each die in 3d6 has the same chance of landing on anything(in other words each die has 1 in six chance of landing on a six) as does each die in 1d6.

If you roll 1d6 three times odds of getting any total is equal to getting the total rolling 3d6. Because in both cases it is about the likely hood of the rolls adding up to 18 is calculated the same for 1d6 three times as 3d6 one time.

In a single roll 3d6 will constantly win. It would take three rolls of 1d6 to match 3d6 and statically the odds of the totals being high for the two are the same.


In short there is no real in game advantage to rolling 1d6 over 3d6 even if the 1d6 happens three times more often.

[RockJock]

Hawk,

What do you see as an anti-armor weapon in Rifts? The whole idea of basically ablative armor combined with a character driven game makes it kinda impossible. I mean in Rifts a multi-warhead nuke with an 1,800 mile range doesn't guarantee a dead GB, or even a 100% to take it out of action in one shot.

[Blue_Lion]

To put the conversation back fully on the ATL-7
Here is why the ATL-7 (unmodified) is worthless.

Durability: glass cannon
Range: a joke
Damage: mediocre
Rate of fire: horrible
Payload: total disaster
Usage: limited especially against beings/armor resistant to energy and lasers
Effectiveness against high mdc beings/armor: not very

Just as likely to get you into a fight as prevent one, but won't do much to end it.

An anti-tank weapon that doesn't kill tanks.

I wouldn't give it to my Ex-wife.

Its damage for a single attack is high so it is a burst damage weapon. It can take out most standard human body armor in a single shot.

It has the one of the highest sustained damage out of any portable weapon. (do to proper applications of math and calculations of probability)
Range is better than most other portable energy weapons. Typically only mini missiles and rail guns are going to have better range.

Not sure how you fond its durability especially low do not recall it having special MD for itself.


Basically your assment is flawed. Now it would not likly be my first choice for a weapon but it is not a horible weapon.

I think what the problem is you are looking at 3d6 as a single unit and not three separate dice. Each die has a 1/6 chance of landing on a 6 but the odds of getting two 6s go down because 5/6 of the time one die has a 6 the other does not. 1 die has a 1/6 chance to roll a six, but there is only (1/6)(1/6) of getting two sixes regardless if you roll 2d6 or 1d6 twice.(in both cases two random number were generated that has a 1/6 chance to be a six.)

[Zer0 Kay]

Let me expand on the idea further.

2d10 vs 1d20.


With 1d20 you have a 5% chance of rolling anything

With 2d10
You have a 0% to roll a 1
1% to roll a 2 or 20
Your odds of rolling anything else go up 1% the closer you get to the middle with 11 having a 10% chance
12-10 9%
13-9 8%
14-8 7%
15-7 6%
16-6 5%
17-5 4%
18-4 3%
19-3 2%
20-2 1%

Same principle applies with 1d6 vs 3d6
My odds are 17% each roll of Getting 6 on 1d6

3d6 has .46% chance each roll to get 18

Meaning I have a 17% chance of rolling three 6's in 3 different rolls.

No
1d20 any number 5%
2d10
roll percentage rnd
2 1.818181818% 2%
3 1.818181818% 2%
4 3.636363636% 4%
5 3.636363636% 4%
6 5.454545455% 5%
7 5.454545455% 5%
8 7.272727273% 7%
9 7.272727273% 7%
10 9.090909091% 9%
11 9.090909091% 9%
12 9.090909091% 9%
13 7.272727273% 7%
14 7.272727273% 7%
15 5.454545455% 5%
16 5.454545455% 5%
17 3.636363636% 4%
18 3.636363636% 4%
19 1.818181818% 2%
20 1.818181818% 2%

Hmm... you shouldn't use 20-2 to denote 20 & 2 or 18-4 to denote 4,5 & 17,18

[Zer0 Kay]

To put the conversation back fully on the ATL-7
Here is why the ATL-7 (unmodified) is worthless.

Durability: glass cannon not listed, most long range aren't
Range: a joke compared to?
Damage: mediocre compared to?
Rate of fire: horrible equal to most heavy, one shot, weapons
Payload: total disaster balances high range and damaged compared to other weapons IG
Usage: limited especially against beings/armor resistant to energy and lasers there aren't very many of either.
Effectiveness against high mdc beings/armor: not very better than most

Just as likely to get you into a fight as prevent one, but won't do much to end it. same with all weapons

An anti-tank weapon that doesn't kill tanks. name one that does

I wouldn't give it to my Ex-wife. anecdotal, don't care

[Blue_Lion]

I think the problem is lack of understanding when you have multiple single die rolls it adds to the possible outcome reducing the odds of getting multiple 6s.

If you roll 1d6 1 time you have 1 in 6(16.67%) chance of rolling a six. That is because you have six possible outcomes with one being a six. (a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6)

Now then if you roll the same die a second time there are now 36 possible results, one of them being rolling two separate 6s so the odds of rolling two sixes in a row are 1 in 36(2.78%). (first roll is a second roll is b a1b1 a1b2 a1b3 a1b4 a1b5 a1b6 a2b1 a2b2 a2b3 a2b4 a2b5 a2b6 a3b1 a3b2 a3b3 a3b4 a3b5 a3b6 a4b1 a4b2 a4b3 a4b4 a4b5 a4b6 a5b1 a5b2 a5b3 a5b4 a5b5 a5b6 a6b1 a6b2 a6b3 a6b4 a6b5 a6b6)

If you roll the same d6 a third time there are now 216 possible results one being that you rolled three 6s. So the odds of getting 3 sixs (18) in three consecutive rolls is 1 in 216(.46%). (not going to list all 216 possible combinations)


So if you do 3 consecutive attacks of 1d6X10MD there is a 1 in 216(.46%) that you will do 180 MD.
If you d 1 attack that does 3d6X10MD there is a 1 in 216(.46%) that you will do 180 MD.

In short regardless if you generate the random numbers one at a time or in a batch the odds of generating three numbers adding up to 18 are the same. (multiple separate rolls like batch rolls odds are number of out comes that give the result you want(A) to the number of possible outcomes (B) expressed as A/B.)

[Hawk258]

I will state it one more time then I am done.

There is no calculation for distribution of outcome.
Meaning calculations of outcome is based on previous outcomes.

With random occurrence a single result with the least factors has better probability of repeating in fewer actions than a single outcome from a combination of factors.

Where 1d6 = 1 outcome
3d6 = a combination of 3 results for 1 outcome

Were 1d6 is greater than 3d6 (in regards to the ATL-7) is frequency of the rolls.

3d6 rolls once
1d6 rolls 3 times.

Where 3d6 is 0.46% likely to roll an 18
And 60% likely to roll between 8 and 13
Each roll

1d6 is 16.67% likely to roll anything.
Each roll.
And with equal opportunity for any result, there is no law of equal distribution. Where 3d6 is going to "be average" more frequently 1d6 is going to have more variations.

If a line were drawn based on individual rolls
3d6 would be flat with a few ripples

1d6 would have peeks and vallies in various sizes.

In the short game 1d6 has better odds than 3d6 of having more high rolls than 3d6

Okay. If we ever meet in person, let's put our money where our mouths are. You will roll 1d6 three times and sum the total. We will repeat this process 100,000 times. Whenever your total for the 3 actions is from 3-7 or from 14-18, you get 10 dollars. Whenever it is an 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13, I get 10 dollars. If what you are saying about probability is true, then you should be very happy with those terms, because of the 16 possible results for that total, you make money on 10 of them, while I only get to make money on six of them! If your logic is correct and the odds for each die are the same both on each roll and summed up, you will end up winning 62.5% of the time, and I will owe you about $625,000

If, on the other hand, what the rest of us are saying is true and the odds of 1d6 rolled separately 3 times are the same as 3d6 rolled once, you'll owe me around $676,600.

So, would you feel confident enough in your position to take those terms?

I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $2 (edited missed 1) okay so depending on

[Hawk258]

Round 2? 0 18's
14, 14, 8, 12, 15, 8, 5, 8, 13, 10, 11, 14, 10, 11, 12, 11, 13, 11, 6, 9, 14, 17, 9, 10, 8, 12, 10, 3, 11, 11, 12, 8, 7, 15, 14, 15, 14, 9, 7, 11, 10, 10, 11, 6, 12, 11, 12, 5, 6, 14, 13, 8, 15, 9, 16, 8, 9, 10, 8, 11, 17, 13, 12, 14, 8, 14, 10, 7, 10, 13, 12, 10, 11, 5, 12, 12, 13, 7, 14, 11, 14, 11, 10, 8, 8, 14, 8, 11, 5, 14, 10, 5, 15, 15, 15, 11, 9, 8, 10, 9
Iou $0

4 strings of 3 6's
4, 2, 5, 5, 5, 1, 5, 3, 3, 4, 6, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 5, 5, 1, 5, 3, 6, 4, 4, 3, 1, 2, 5, 3, 1, 6, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 2, 5, 1, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 2, 1, 5, 6, 4, 2, 5, 5, 3, 3, 1, 1, 4, 3, 3, 5, 1, 6, 6, 6, 2, 5, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 4, 4, 6, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 6, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 4, 4, 1, 5, 1, 6, 6, 2, 6, 6, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 3, 5, 1, 5, 4, 6, 1, 3, 5, 1, 3, 4, 2, 6, 1, 6, 2, 6, 1, 1, 4, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 2, 5, 5, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 2, 1, 4, 6, 5, 4, 2, 1, 3, 4, 2, 6, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 5, 6, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 4, 3, 6, 5, 2, 6, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 3, 5, 6, 3, 6, 2, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 2, 6, 2, 4, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 2, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 1, 5, 4, 2, 2, 1, 4, 2, 5, 6, 6, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, 1, 5, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 3, 5, 4, 4, 5, 2, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 6, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 6, 6, 6, 2, 6, 4, 1, 4, 1, 6, 2, 6, 5, 6, 5, 5

You owe me $4 bucks

[Mack]

I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6.

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.

[Hawk258]

I will counter offer.

I roll 300 times
And you roll 100 times.

Every time you get 18 I will give you a buck.
Every time I roll 3 6's in 3 consecutive rolls you give me a buck.

In fact let's use any Dice to see.

https://anydice.com/program/13a32

2: 2, 1, 3, 2, 5, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6, 3, 5, 4, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1, 6, 4, 3, 1, 5, 5, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 1, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 1, 2, 3, 3, 6, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 4, 3, 3, 1, 6, 5, 6, 5, 2, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 6, 4, 6, 1, 2, 6, 3, 6, 5, 6, 6, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 4, 2, 6, 5, 3, 1, 5, 1, 1, 4, 1, 3, 3, 5, 2, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 1, 6, 4, 2, 6, 5, 6, 4, 6, 4, 1, 6, 3, 3, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 4, 6, 4, 5, 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 4, 3, 4, 1, 4, 5, 1, 5, 5, 2, 5, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2, 2, 5, 2, 6, 5, 6, 1, 6, 6, 6, 3, 2, 4, 2, 5, 3, 3, 1, 3, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 1, 5, 3, 1, 4, 6, 4, 6, 2, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 5, 6, 1, 5, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 1, 4, 4, 6, 3, 3, 6, 6, 6, 2, 1, 6, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 4, 3, 5, 5, 1, 5, 6, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 2, 3, 4, 3, 1, 6, 2, 3, 4, 6, 3, 4, 6, 6, 5, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 5, 1, 1, 6
Mine you owe me $4


10, 14, 7, 12, 6, 11, 10, 11, 9, 13, 14, 17, 13, 13, 18, 11, 11, 11, 15, 14, 9, 13, 12, 5, 18, 14, 11, 8, 7, 12, 5, 9, 12, 12, 13, 14, 7, 10, 15, 11, 16, 8, 8, 11, 8, 12, 11, 4, 14, 15, 5, 10, 12, 16, 8, 7, 15, 5, 9, 10, 12, 10, 7, 10, 9, 16, 14, 15, 14, 9, 13, 7, 9, 8, 4, 15, 14, 5, 14, 4, 6, 10, 4, 12, 13, 13, 15, 16, 13, 11, 17, 11, 15, 12, 13, 13, 11, 11, 9, 6

Iou $1

Do the same math on that data with a 3 on 3D6 vs a string of 1s on 1D6.

No, don't do that. It doesn't matter because this is a false scenario. To do it correctly, one would first have to group the 1D6 data by groups of three... (2, 2, 1), (3, 2, 5), (2, 4, 3), (5, 6, 3)… and only count the ones that had three 6s in a group.

And for extra fun, check the average of the two sets. For the first, it's 3.52 which triples to 10.58. For the second, it's 11.01. Both of which are within the expected variation for a sample this size. There's no difference between the two.

Did I not just string 4 groups of 6 twice?

Did you get 18 once on 200 rolls?

My odds are better than yours.

Hell there are 2 strings of 4 6's in 600 rolls.

Want to keep trying?

Like I said, 3d6 shoots "average" 1d6 has more possibilities for large variations. But when the dice are hot, it pays off.

[Hawk258]

8 sets of 6's in 600 rolls of 1d6 vs 1 18 in 200 of 3d6

See what I mean?

Either way you go I am up $1 or up $7


The odds of me stringing more 6's together are better than you rolling 18

I rolled 8 strings of three 6(or better) in 600 1.33%

Vs 0.5% for your one 18 in 200.

[Mack]

Hawk, I’m unconvinced you read a single word I wrote.

[dreicunan]

No, I'm not going to accept those terms, because you've once again compared apples and oranges. You want to grab any string of three sixes regardless of if it actually was 3 in a set of 3 rolls and call that proof. That doesn't prove anything, because if you roll 3, 1, 6, 6, 6, 2, that is the same as rolling 10 (3, 1, 6) and 14 (6, 6, 2). The fact that 3 sixes were in there doesn't do anything to make that result better than any other combination of dice that would produce 10 and 14.

The funniest thing, however, is that you didn't bother checking the sum. Who cares how many sixes your rolled. Your second example only did a total of 10530 damage with 1d6x10 300 times, while 3d6x10 100 times did 10700. Oh, and if we are comparing ATL damage output, remember that we then have to add 20x100, so that means 12700 damage.

Of course, a raw result of 1053 for 1d6 300 times and 1060 for 3d6 100 times is no surprise, because they are each equal to 300d6.

So if for some reason you like the idea of seeing that you did "max damage" by getting a 6 on 1d6, go for it. Once again, if "max damage" is your highest good, try to use 1d2 weapons. However, don't pretend like "max damage" in and of itself is actually giving you some kind of advantage indepedent of actual numbers. You're only kidding yourself.

To help illustrate this in a different way, would you prefer a 1d6x10 or a 3d2x10 weapon? Because I'd take the 3d2x10 weapon all day, every day, and twice and on Sundays.

[Hawk258]

No, I'm not going to accept those terms, because you've once again compared apples and oranges. You want to grab any string of three sixes regardless of if it actually was 3 in a set of 3 rolls and call that proof. That doesn't prove anything, because if you roll 3, 1, 6, 6, 6, 2, that is the same as rolling 10 (3, 1, 6) and 14 (6, 6, 2). The fact that 3 sixes were in there doesn't do anything to make that result better than any other combination of dice that would produce 10 and 14.

The funniest thing, however, is that you didn't bother checking the sum. Who cares how many sixes your rolled. Your second example only did a total of 10530 damage with 1d6x10 300 times, while 3d6x10 100 times did 10700. Oh, and if we are comparing ATL damage output, remember that we then have to add 20x100, so that means 12700 damage.

Of course, a raw result of 1053 for 1d6 300 times and 1060 for 3d6 100 times is no surprise, because they are each equal to 300d6.

So if for some reason you like the idea of seeing that you did "max damage" by getting a 6 on 1d6, go for it. Once again, if "max damage" is your highest good, try to use 1d2 weapons. However, don't pretend like "max damage" in and of itself is actually giving you some kind of advantage indepedent of actual numbers. You're only kidding yourself.

To help illustrate this in a different way, would you prefer a 1d6x10 or a 3d2x10 weapon? Because I'd take the 3d2x10 weapon all day, every day, and twice and on Sundays.

I will take 1d6x10 with 1 attack per action vs 3d6x10 with 1 attack in 3

[Hawk258]

No, I'm not going to accept those terms, because you've once again compared apples and oranges. You want to grab any string of three sixes regardless of if it actually was 3 in a set of 3 rolls and call that proof. That doesn't prove anything, because if you roll 3, 1, 6, 6, 6, 2, that is the same as rolling 10 (3, 1, 6) and 14 (6, 6, 2). The fact that 3 sixes were in there doesn't do anything to make that result better than any other combination of dice that would produce 10 and 14.

The funniest thing, however, is that you didn't bother checking the sum. Who cares how many sixes your rolled. Your second example only did a total of 10530 damage with 1d6x10 300 times, while 3d6x10 100 times did 10700. Oh, and if we are comparing ATL damage output, remember that we then have to add 20x100, so that means 12700 damage.

Of course, a raw result of 1053 for 1d6 300 times and 1060 for 3d6 100 times is no surprise, because they are each equal to 300d6.

So if for some reason you like the idea of seeing that you did "max damage" by getting a 6 on 1d6, go for it. Once again, if "max damage" is your highest good, try to use 1d2 weapons. However, don't pretend like "max damage" in and of itself is actually giving you some kind of advantage indepedent of actual numbers. You're only kidding yourself.

To help illustrate this in a different way, would you prefer a 1d6x10 or a 3d2x10 weapon? Because I'd take the 3d2x10 weapon all day, every day, and twice and on Sundays.

Did I or did I not have 8 strings of three sixes? And was there only one 18?

Were the same total number of dice used?

Was there an equal distribution of dice used?

You got 200 rolls at 3 dice. 600d6 right?

I got 1 die 1 roll 600d6 right?

By your metric I am 2:1 or in total 8:1 of rolling a string of three 6's than you are to roll an 18.

[Hawk258]

Hawk, I’m unconvinced you read a single word I wrote.

I believe I did.

All I have been trying to say is

1: a weapon that shots 1d6x10 at 1:1 attack:actions has better odds of more strings of max damage than the ATL-7 at 1:3 at 3d6x10+20 of max damage.

2: 3d6 in 1 roll will shot average damage and 1d6 will be broader action to action.

3: the potential for greater damage in the short game is in the 1d6's advantage at 1:1 than 3d6's at 1:3 due to frequency of rolls.