NoMaDhOoK
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by NoMaDhOoK
-
-
7 hours ago, The_Dudemeister said:
No Ethereal/invulnerable saves?
Good! Noone must know that their big badies become as pillow-fisted as our own Nighthaunt heroes untill it is too late! 😆
I have no clue how I forgot to add `Ethereal` as a modifier, especially considering that I own and play Nighthaunt. I have released a quick patch to add the Ethereal modifier.
damonhook released this 8 minutes ago
Changes
-
Added
Etherealas a target modifier
-
2
-
Added
-
Changes
-
Added Target Modifiers to
Average StatsandAdvanced Stats. (c.c. Requestors: @Inquisitorsz)-
Current list:
- Reroll 1's to Save
- Reroll Failed Saves
- Reroll Saves
- Feel no pain (FNP)
- Mortal Wound Negation
- With more to come in the future
-
Current list:
-
Added
Clear Targetbutton to drawer
UI
-
Minor adjustments in order to facilitate the new Target modifiers
- Added tabs to desktop left side for units and target
- Added 3rd tab to mobile for target
- Added a Target summary to the stats tab (side)
PDF
- Added the target modifiers to the PDF
Misc
- Added canonical URL to site
Fixes
- Fixed PDF on mobile chopping titles off of graphs
-
Fixed Weapon Profile not disabling confirm when incorrect modifiers are present
- This only happened when you re-open the dialog for an existing profile which had modifiers
In a future update: I am going to allow you to toggle the modifiers for target modifiers and weapon profile modifiers (as was requested a short while back)
-
1
-
Added Target Modifiers to
-
Just now, SleeperAgent said:
The Petrifex Elite CA is Bludgeon. Unless he was talking about the Dread Falchions Im fairly certain spirit blades max out at rend 3.
Yeah I realised as soon as I hit send that that's what it is called. Yeah I think he might be talking about falchions. But those are only 3 attacks not 5, so not sure
-
1 hour ago, SleeperAgent said:
Can I ask how you got them to -4 rend? I know Precision Aspect and Bludgeon is -3. I too have to deal with a Maw Krusha and his 3 up save.
You can use the petrifex elite command ability to give +1 rend as well
Edit: oh right the CA is called Bludgeon
I think he means the falchions get to - 4 rend (2 base, + Prec, +bludgeon)
-
35 minutes ago, Boar said:
Great stuff. I checked a thing or two just now with my old spreadsheets , looks very close. So, how many simulations are you using, 1000?
I need to get back to my Python, holiday food slowed me down, heh.
5000 per save currently. I am still messing around with the number, trying to balance accuracy with speed. But unfortunately the number needs to be quite high to handle certain modifier combinations (especially with target modifiers, which I am currently working on).
-
10 minutes ago, Neffelo said:
Yeah, that would be very cool. I thought early on one of the reasons they didn't allow more battleline types was that it would throw off the balance too much. Low and behold our battleline is one of the strongest things in the book so it turns out an ability making Stalkers battleline probably would not have disrupted anything at all.
Yeah. And not having them puts Mortek in a strange balance position. If they get a points increase it would throw off a lot of lists and wouldn't result in them being used less, just means that people have less points for other units (since we don't get much choice in BL). Having more battleline options would give GW more balancing freedom
-
Changes
-
Add Cumulative Probability Graphs to
Advanced Statsscreen (cc: @Inquisitorsz) - Add Cumulative Probability Graphs to PDF
UI
-
Allow users to toggle the X Axis Syncing of graphs in the
Advanced Statsscreen
Next up: Target Modifiers
-
1
-
Add Cumulative Probability Graphs to
-
So we know that Petrifex Elite Mortek Guard are absolutely digusting (honestly that is what makes PE so unfun for many people).
What might be better (I might give it a try for casual games) is to lean into the elite part of the name and nerf the petrifex elite ability to
"add +1 to save rolls for units with a wounds characteristic of 3 or more" (so everything except mortek)
No if only there was a way to make stalkers battleline (I can dream)
-
2 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:
What does everyone think of Katakros?
discussion about the different legions? I’m struggling to find a situation where Petrifx Elite isn’t the best option, even in an all cavalry army, Stalliarch Lords run and charge is awesome but I still think the +1 save is better? Ivory Host is definitely the worse Legion in my opinion. I should point out that I’ll alway be running Arkhan and/or Katakros as general so I don’t much care about the Legion artefact or command trait
Unfortunately Petrifex Elite is still the best option for a Katakros list (as +1 unconditional save for everything else, is better than +1 from Katakros, and even though he can't get the petrifex elite benefit, he will give himself +1 save from his ability).
Something to note about Katakros is that he is a buff piece, yes his damage gets better when he is low on wounds, but even at his strongest, he has bad damage for a 500 point model. His strength lies in his plethora of abilities, and in generating 5RDP a round on his own
Personally, I am going to be running him
-
7 hours ago, NoMaDhOoK said:
I am going to get the damage fix out so long
FYI: The fix was released (I just forgot to put a message here at the time)
-
10 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:
I tried putting in the stats for Durthu and a wounded version.
The damage curve seems to make sense but the variability is like 4x higher for the unwounded version which doesn't make sense. D6 damage should be much more variable than 6 damage right?
@Inquisitorsz Found it, it was a bug with the get damage portion of the simulation. It was still getting the average damage (3.5) instead of rolling. This resulting in the tests that I ran (comparing average of sample against population) still pass, even though it was not rolling.
When probabilities get way too small, it is possible for them to get lost (rounded out).
Looks like I have some more work to do after Christmas.
I am going to get the damage fix out so long
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:
Awesome stuff mate.
Looks fantastic.
I tried putting in the stats for Durthu and a wounded version.
The damage curve seems to make sense but the variability is like 4x higher for the unwounded version which doesn't make sense. D6 damage should be much more variable than 6 damage right?
I think it's got something to do with that the unwounded version has a much higher maximum.... Although you can still roll a 6 for D6 damage, so the maximums should be the same right? Even if incredibly unlikely. Maybe it's a rounding thing?
Also when I put in add a second weapon profile, his impaling talons, things get weird.
Finally, impaling talons seems to Max out at a bit over 2 damage (graph gets cut off) but the ability is D6 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit, so the Max should be 6 (or actually 7 with the winterleaf exploding 6s).
Also, you should add a donate link somewhere. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for the write up. I'll take a deep dive into it after Christmas. Simulations are a little harder to test due to the "random" aspect. So there could be something off in the chain
Edit: found the bug for this issue. Details in separate reply below
The wonky graph could be due to a multi wound profile. Many units get this weird "wavy" pattern when they have a multiwound profile (e.g: 3 damage) along with a modifier that can "sometimes" deal aditional damage.
Because it is not cumulative probability, the chance of getting a multiple of the profile (say 3 damage) is higher than a non multiple.
I think an option to switch the graphs to cumulative probability may be helpful so that's on my to do list for before the new year
-
2 minutes ago, The_Dudemeister said:
Can you make the probabilities in the tooltip cumulative? I'd like to know what the chances are to make at least 4 damage and not what the chances are to make exactly 4 damage 😄
Makes sense. That is definitely something I can look into doing 👍
-
FYI: I am releasing a quick fix for `Reroll Failed` and `Reroll Ones` with the new simulations (advanced stats)
Edit: **Fix Released**
-
[0.6.0] Christmas Update - Advanced Metrics and Probabilities
Changes
-
Added a new screen called
Advanced Statswhich provides additional stats generated through simulations (cc: @Inquisitorsz, @Kadeton, @Boar)-
Contains tables with
mean,median,max, andvariance -
Contains full probability curve graphs
-
With the option to display reference lines for
mean,median, ormax
-
With the option to display reference lines for
- This feature is in Beta
-
Contains tables with
- Add probability curves to PDF
UI
-
Added the ability to hover (or touch on mobile) legend items in charts in order to highlight only that series
- This will also highlight the relevant reference lines if there are any
-
Move from a
AppMenuto aDrawer -
Changed
App Barfromfixed->Hide on scroll
Architecture
- Spawn a cluster of workers for the express server (3 for now, may increase)
- Add gzip compression to API endpoints
Fixes
- Fixed Chart titles missing from PDF graphs
Notes
- This was a large release with a lot of new, beta, additions. Please do let me know if you have any problems, and Merry Christmas
-
3
-
1
-
Added a new screen called
-
23 minutes ago, Aaranis said:
I don't understand the strategy I've read a few times here already, consisting in deep-striking Olynder and her bodyguards. The mortal wounds are dealt mainly in the Hero phase so you'll only have the Banshee screams, which are hardly terrifying as everyone and their dog have Bravery 10 nowadays. You also lose one turn of casting/dispelling 2 spells because she's not on the board yet, so I hardly see the point.
Don't forget that in most cases, you will be deployed too far away from each other for turn 1 offensive spells. The dispelling maybe. But in most cases, turn 1 isn't a heavy spell casing turn
-
Still got lots more work to, but here is a sneak peak of the probability graphs that I have working in my dev environment
I am hopefully aiming for a release sometime near the end of next week.
-
1
-
1
-
-
@Inquisitorsz, @Kadeton, @Boar I have some good news. Doing simulations was a lot easier than I had anticipated. I have managed to get it working (as far as I have tested so far) and have run the following tests (ensure that the mean of 3000 simulations is within 3% of the calculated "population" mean)
I still have a lot more tests to run and frontend work to do, and I haven't even started looking at performance optimisations, but it is looking very promising.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, tom_gore said:
Do you think it would be possible in the future to use this as an actual dice roller, too? In short, it would calculate the amount of hits and wounds from an actual randomized roll according to the "specs" inserted?
Though that was not the original intention of the website, I am currently working on the ability to run a number simulations in order to plot probability curves, so I guess adding a little roll button to run 1 simulation would be an easy addition if you want it.
6 minutes ago, tom_gore said:After that the ability to save your "favourite" profiles
Currently you can do this through the import / export function (saves as a .json file). In the future I may add the ability to register/login and save that way. Though that is a little further off.
-
2
-
-
I have released the 0.5.0 version now. As always, please do let me know if there are any issues.
Changes
-
Changed order of graphs from
[Line, Bar, Radar]->[Bar, Line, Radar] - Added Beta version of PDF export (cc: @Planar)
- Allow you to add an optional weapon profile name (cc. @Inquisitorsz)
UI
- Added chart titles
- Added Reddit button to footer
Fixes
- Fix scroll "jumping" on reload of page
Notes
- The PDF is in Beta as I want to get feedback before finalising the design
-
The PDF results are always on a separate page to ensure that they are grouped together
- This will make screenshots / single page prints easier
- In the future I will add PDF export settings (e.g: exclude unit data)
-
1
-
Changed order of graphs from
-
2 hours ago, Boar said:
Nice. I wanted to do something similar, kinda got sad for a moment that someone done this already. Still not going to surrender, best way to learn something new is doing something tied to your interests.
The repo is also public so you are welcome to contribute if you want. Either way, I wish you luck
2 hours ago, Boar said:Doing variance with all those modifiers and steps everywhere, looks horrible. I was thinking of running simulation like 100-1000 times, always something because average is well, only average and example with ballista shows it perfectly
Yeah I think I have settled on the simulation route (100 is too small a sample size, so probably 1000). I am then going to do a full probability curve chart, as even variance / standard deviation metrics can be skewed heavily by outliers.
-
Thanks for the feedback
8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:I wonder if doing something like displaying the min/max of any D6 attacks or D6 damage stat would be enough.
For example. If I have 4 attacks, 3+,3+,-1,D6... you could work out the average as normal, up until the damage calculation.... and then display the results for both damage 1 and damage 6. That kind of gives you an "averaged min/max" right?
And either display that as two separate lines, or as a single average line with min/max variance bars.
Of course that might get too complicated if you have multiple variable stats like D6 attacks that cause D6 damage. But I guess that's kind of like the event tree that you mentioned.I was thinking of doing this, however, unfortunately there is also the matter of the Exploding, Mortal Wound, and Conditional Bonus modifiers that occur on a specific roll. This introduces another layer of variance.
8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:Simulating 10,000 outcomes is probably the easier way to do it though, but I'm not sure how that would work on the back end of the app/website. Perhaps have an "advanced stats" menu like you said, and have that run a calculation rather than a live updating table.
Once the next update (PDF) is out (shouldn't be too long, I'd say I am around 60-70% done with it), I will mess around a bit and see if I can get it working. I agree that the simulation is probably the easiest, and I could try and use parallelism to speed up the generation of the outcomes (Since each generation is independent).
8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:ultimately I think it would be useful to see how reliable/consistent some of these monsters are (coz it's usually monsters that have these kind of random stats).
Definitely. Another good example for this requirement is the Celestar Ballista, which has a pitiful mean of 2.59 damage against a 4+ save. But this is because it scores D6 hits per hit, resulting in a massive variance (It's max damage is actually 24 damage). Nurgle suffers from this as well with a lot of their damage coming from D6 rolls.
8 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:it's going to be a fine balance between being too mathematically heavy (both in computation and explanation) and how the data is displayed.
I'm sure you're aware that interpretation and correct display of data is just as important as actually calculating it in the first place.Another advantage of using simulations is I could then even plot a full probability curve if I wanted to (Giving a really good indication on the damage spread)
-
7 minutes ago, Kadeton said:
I'll see if I can come up with a less computationally-intensive option to give you the SD of a complex set of linked rolls and modifiers.
Awesome, thanks. I'll do some more thinking on it as well. I do agree that it would be a great addition (just going to get PDF export done first)
-
Thanks for the feedback. Here are some responses / thoughts
2 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:- I don't see a way to rename the weapon profiles? But that's very minor
This would be very easy to add, so I will add an optional name field for them
2 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:Would like a toggle to turn modifiers on and off.... just like the whole weapon profile, but for modifiers, or for each modifier. Might get a bit too cluttered?
I'll look into this, though I'll just have to make sure the UI doesn't get too cluttered
2 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:Seems there's a limit for 5 units at a time. Makes sense for the graphing, but if you're trying to compare different units and different options, can reach that limit quickly (eg, Drycha and her 2 angry forms and various wargrove bonuses). Would be nice to maybe increase the limit to 8 or something?
I can look into increasing the limit. The limit was also there to avoid cluttering the table too much (especially for mobile). I may look a transposing the table (swap the rows and columns) to see if that helps. Essentially this means the table will grow in the number of rows as the number of units increases (as opposed to growing in the number of columns like it currently does)
2 hours ago, Inquisitorsz said:Would be great to see variance on the graphs.... like for things that do D6 mortal wounds on a 6 to hit with 1 attack.... the average isn't very useful. Perhaps the line graph can have variance bars?
CC: @Kadeton. Yeah, while average is the best metric to evaluate the performance of a unit over all the possible games it will ever be used in (as it will always eventually average out), you are right in that it doesn't give a good indication of the consistency of the unit within a particular game. After I have got through the other needed changes (essentially a 1.0 release), I do plan on looking at other statistical metrics (range, and std. dev.).
Just going to think out loud here in case someone has better ideas:
The difficulty with variance and standard deviation is that it contains the sum of all the possible outcomes within a given sample. This means that there are 2 options:
- Simulate x number of outcomes (between 1 000 and 10 000) and use those outcomes as the sample.
- Plot all of the possible outcomes (Essentially building a probability tree / event chain).
Both of these options are quite difficult (and computationally expensive) due to how modifiers can interact with the chain, especially considering the current method for the average calculation is not done through simulations.
It is something I am looking into, though it is probably a ways off, and most likely will not be in the auto-updating graph (like current average is), but rather a separate "Advanced statistics" button that will give you the extra metrics.
-
2
-
2
AoS 2 - Nighthaunt Discussion
in Death
Posted · Edited by NoMaDhOoK
Me too. One interesting suggestion I have seen someone recommend is to change it to something along the lines of: 5+ fight first in the combat phase, 8 or 9+ fight in charge phase (the current ability).
Or maybe even always fight first after charges but that may be too strong with the retreat and charge shenanigans