Strategy factors affecting endurance burn...

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:15 pm

I'm interested in knowing other managers' thoughts and observations on endurance burn and how offensive level and activity level affect it.

I don't have a large pool of information to pull from, but I have noticed that it seems high OLs affect endurance burn more than high AL. I've seen warriors with good endurance staggering to the ground in just two minutes while running 10-10-x last over 6 minutes at 7-2-x, but bumping them up to something like 10-3-x or 10-4-x seems to cause them to burn out much faster, like back down to 3 or 4 minutes. I've run other warriors with a dodge strategy like 2-8-5 in all minutes and had them last past 8 minutes, only to collapse in 2 running a more offensive 9-7-6 strategy.

So, has anyone else noticed high OL causing faster endurance burn than high ALs do? Or any other sage wisdom/opinions on the matter?

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:24 pm

Sounds like you've got some great data points yourself.

Realize that from fight to fight with the same warrior and strategy, endurance burn can change, sometimes dramatically, though usually in just minor ways.

***
Most of my subtle work has been done on bashers, usuallly endurance challenged bashers.

The difference between 10-10 and slightly lower is fairly substantial.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:42 pm

From my experience the difference between 9-10 and 7-8 OE (guessing what you meant by OL) is pretty noticable. I think even if they attack the same, let's say 10 times to round it off, in minute 1 the guy going 9-10 can become tired but the same guy running 7-8 might not until early minute 2. I would guess even if the attacks are the same the formula of the code takes into account that even if the attacks are the same the guy running a higher Offensive Effort (OE) is more active.

Here's what I mean:

It assumes that the guy may be making more "half attacks" or feints and although it doesn't state he attacked or swung wildly or off-balance that he was putting forth more effort to attack and therefore would tire faster. I think the same goes for Activity Level (AL). Although it may only show 7 movements (ie shifts right/left, circles around, moves constantly) a warrior running a 10 AL is moving more than a guy running a 8 AL.

On a side note I tend to count Attacks and Motions on a warrior to see how they tire to compare and assess if I believe they are towards the bottom,middle,or top of their endurance rating. If 2 STs, best example as they generally go 10-10-x-D-xand are more easily compared, both have poor endurance and one goes 7 attacks and 3 motions before tiring and the other goes 9 attacks and 4 motions before it tires, on average, then I guess one is closer to normal endurance than the other is. And it often bares out to be correct. I also watch carry ability and amount carried and all being the same often it seems to me I am on to something but have not really tried to pin it down I just adjust if needed based on what I note.

As Assur said the computer probably assigns a "burn range" for each action. Like an attack from Warrior A may burn anywhere from 5-10 endurance points; a movement may take from 2-6 endurance points; so the same guy might go 7 or 9 attacks before tiring running the exact same strategy. I tend to believe each attack equals 2-3 motions in my experience. I don't generally count dodges or parries as they more often come on defensives and I measure them more by carry and minutes lasted.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:06 pm

Street_Legal wrote:

OE (guessing what you meant by OL)

Yeah, that is what I meant. Oops. Embarassed

The idea of individual motions being counted makes sense. At the very least it's one more data point to help determine warrior performance.

Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:09 pm

I also believe that running on your faves reduces endurance burn. Don't have enough data points to state this anywhere close to 100%, but it is my belief.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 12:30 am

Daemonspawn wrote:

I'm interested in knowing other managers' thoughts and observations on endurance burn and how offensive level and activity level affect it.

I don't have a large pool of information to pull from, but I have noticed that it seems high OLs affect endurance burn more than high AL. I've seen warriors with good endurance staggering to the ground in just two minutes while running 10-10-x last over 6 minutes at 7-2-x, but bumping them up to something like 10-3-x or 10-4-x seems to cause them to burn out much faster, like back down to 3 or 4 minutes. I've run other warriors with a dodge strategy like 2-8-5 in all minutes and had them last past 8 minutes, only to collapse in 2 running a more offensive 9-7-6 strategy.

So, has anyone else noticed high OL causing faster endurance burn than high ALs do? Or any other sage wisdom/opinions on the matter?

No, indeed. Our data shows us that AL is a stronger driver of "burn" than OE. However, both are significant.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:48 am

Just to throw one more variable into the mix... I believe that OE and AL means different things for different styles. A Slasher will tire before an A-Blow using the same set of numbers. A WoS will tire before a P-Strike using the same set of numbers.

The formula for all of this must be very complex. Didn't I read somewhere that the designer of the game enjoyed Chinese puzzle boxes? Open one box and you get another, etc. One choice leads to two possible choices, and each leads to another pair of possibilities...

This is why I feel comfortable with just a couple of styles, the two I've spent a lot of time reviewing, running, experimenting with. Even within those styles there are nuances, based on the warrior design. However, taking my experiences and data re: a WASTE and attempting to transfer it over to a Striker is (in some regards) pointless -- some of it is irrelevant.

To be more concise, I believe that AL and OE have a different effect on different styles. Also, I agree that the difference between a 9 and a 10 could prove significant, depending on the individual warrior design (and possibly the style and strategy of the opposing fighter).

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:40 am

KidArcane wrote:

Just to throw one more variable into the mix... I believe that OE and AL means different things for different styles. A Slasher will tire before an A-Blow using the same set of numbers. A WoS will tire before a P-Strike using the same set of numbers.

The formula for all of this must be very complex. Didn't I read somewhere that the designer of the game enjoyed Chinese puzzle boxes? Open one box and you get another, etc. One choice leads to two possible choices, and each leads to another pair of possibilities...

This is why I feel comfortable with just a couple of styles, the two I've spent a lot of time reviewing, running, experimenting with. Even within those styles there are nuances, based on the warrior design. However, taking my experiences and data re: a WASTE and attempting to transfer it over to a Striker is (in some regards) pointless -- some of it is irrelevant.

To be more concise, I believe that AL and OE have a different effect on different styles. Also, I agree that the difference between a 9 and a 10 could prove significant, depending on the individual warrior design (and possibly the style and strategy of the opposing fighter).

We might say this differently.
Different styles have different endu burns.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:59 am

For me I've noticed that OE burns my fighters down faster than AL does. I've ran guys with AL but a 7 OE and have them run awhile but switch those numbers around (10 OE and 7 AL) and the lasting time drops dramatically. For me I think swinging burns way more than moving. I can probably swing a sword for a few minutes before tiring but I can jump around awhile before I get tired. Perhaps the game was designed with a touch of realizm to it Shocked

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:25 pm

To throw out another variable to confuse and confound those trying to figure out this game (that is all of us right?) in answering a question regarding the most important thing regarding gaining the "first blow" the designer says this:

......... and in another fighting style the activity level may play a part.

Throughout the answer he uses the word styles in this last example he uses the word style, I have a pretty good idea which style it is. Also in the rules it talks about a PR may actually attack more using a lower OE and attack less with a higher OE. So I think both are right. Styles have a different endu burn but also a TP using a 10 AL and OE will not be moving around like a "Hummingbird on Crack" like a LU using a 10-10 would be; so the endu burn is one thing compounded by the style as well I believe ( that's why I say I think both are right).

Many things to each and every aspect of this game. I'm guessing there are literally thousands, possibly 10s of thousands, of indexes and subroutines in the coding of this game. And yes I believe it is Ed Schoonover who was a huge fan of Chinese Puzzle Boxes! I know for a fact I read it somewhere just not sure where or if Ed was the one for sure.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:52 pm

The Consortium wrote:

Daemonspawn wrote:

I'm interested in knowing other managers' thoughts and observations on endurance burn and how offensive level and activity level affect it.

I don't have a large pool of information to pull from, but I have noticed that it seems high OLs affect endurance burn more than high AL. I've seen warriors with good endurance staggering to the ground in just two minutes while running 10-10-x last over 6 minutes at 7-2-x, but bumping them up to something like 10-3-x or 10-4-x seems to cause them to burn out much faster, like back down to 3 or 4 minutes. I've run other warriors with a dodge strategy like 2-8-5 in all minutes and had them last past 8 minutes, only to collapse in 2 running a more offensive 9-7-6 strategy.

So, has anyone else noticed high OL causing faster endurance burn than high ALs do? Or any other sage wisdom/opinions on the matter?

No, indeed. Our data shows us that AL is a stronger driver of "burn" than OE. However, both are significant.

Been my observation that AL and encumberance are related when it comes to endurance burn.

Very low AL seems to mitigate the endurance effects of pushing encumberance limits.
Running naked with minimal weapon weight seems to allow higher AL for longer.
There seems to be a break point with encumberance + AL where the endurance burn starts to skyrocket.

Haven't noticed the relationship between OE and encumberance to be as significant as AL and encumberance as related to endurance burn.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:55 pm

Street_Legal wrote:

\And yes I believe it is Ed Schoonover who was a huge fan of Chinese Puzzle Boxes! I know for a fact I read it somewhere just not sure where or if Ed was the one for sure.

The Enchiriodon (or however it's spelled). An old time compilation of DM game theory covering most every aspect of the game. I lost my copy when my hard drive crashed; I need to get another. Some of that stuff is dated, but it has helped me a lot in visualizing and understanding some of the nuances of the game.

And Consortium -- you're much more succinct than I am. Different styles have different endurance burns... AL is a stronger driver of "burn" than OE... But is style the main factor, or is it the level/number in the AL box?

Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:28 am

KidArcane wrote:

Street_Legal wrote:

\And yes I believe it is Ed Schoonover who was a huge fan of Chinese Puzzle Boxes! I know for a fact I read it somewhere just not sure where or if Ed was the one for sure.

The Enchiriodon (or however it's spelled). An old time compilation of DM game theory covering most every aspect of the game. I lost my copy when my hard drive crashed; I need to get another. Some of that stuff is dated, but it has helped me a lot in visualizing and understanding some of the nuances of the game.

And Consortium -- you're much more succinct than I am. Different styles have different endurance burns... AL is a stronger driver of "burn" than OE... But is style the main factor, or is it the level/number in the AL box?

Uhhhhhh, yes. Wink