Did this turn into an /iamverysmart thread ?
I work in a place full of statisticians, and we’ve had to unfortunately have numerous conversations with some of them about the difference between “a decrease” and “a decrease in the rate.” Apparently “it’s increasing slower” isn’t clear enough for some.
Maybe I’m understanding wrong but a decrease in the rate would be the derivative of a decrease. Aka the slope of the line. So if you are decreasing at -x. Rate of decrease is -1.
Unless I follow your wording incorrectly. Obviously it isn’t always so nice of a function in real stats. Is that what they are missing?
I think it’s more y=5x and then y=3x, so you’re still increasing, but the rate of increase has decreased.
This is exactly the issue that happens. They write things out narratively like a decrease happened, which would cause some panic in certain groups we work with, and then they would argue when we requested they fix it to represent a decrease in the rate of increase, or a slower/lower increase than prior, or however they wanna say it. But it certainly didn’t decrease.
So the derivative of the derivative, lol. It goes all the way down in math, physics though, that guys a jerk. (Sorry for the bad joke)
In game design, it has to be stated whether it’s multiplicative or additive. Sometimes a logarithmic function is used as well, with increases in efficiency as 1 / ( 1 + bonus ). This allows you to always add more bonus, but there’s diminishing returns.
This upgrade adds +100% critical chance.
The weapon has a base critical chance of 10%, so the new critical chance is 20%, not 110%
In game design +100% would be 10% + 100% = 110% crit.
Increases by +100% = base + 100%
Increases by 100% = base + base x 100%
i wish it was more common to also indicate the precedence of a percentage increase, so that it’s easier to know if i’m dealing with (x + y ) * z or x + (y * z). although that’s admittedly a lot harder to communicate.
Just include a glossary of formulas for figuring out stats/chances/whatever in your game. With clearly labeled variables. Then throw a reference to that glossary in your tooltips/helpful popups.
Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone to instead not add such systems? After all, don’t many go for the simple logic of bigger number is better instead of doing the math?
hopeful-weirdo just needs to be told to consider what increasing by 500% means and it’ll click.
Having two possible outcomes does not mean it’s a 50:50 chance.
“So if I aim the arrow at the 1cm square from 100m away and shoot, I either hit it or I don’t. So basically I have a 50% chance of hitting it.”
The thing with that is that it’s actually a useful generalization to make in a lot of scenarios.
If you know nothing about the distinction between two possible outcomes, treating them as equally likely is a helpful tool to continue with the back of the envelope guess. Knowing this path needs 5 coin tosses to go right and this one needs 10 is helpful to approximate which is better.
Your example is obviously outside the realm where you have zero information, so uniform distribution is no longer the reasonable default. But the idea is from a reasonable technique, taken to extremes by someone who doesn’t fully get it.
Either I become president, or I don’t.
Therefore, the odds of me becoming president is 50%
Brb committing 34 felonies.
You’ve already failed.
You have to commit hundreds of felonies. In broad daylight. And brag about it.
Threaten witnesses. Delay everything.
And only be convicted of 34.
Then not get sentenced.
On the other hand: Half of my lottery tickets were jackpots. I never played and have (1/2 * 0 = ) 0 jackpots.
Very weird fun fact about arrows/darts and statistics, theres 0% chance of hitting an exact bullseye. You can hit it its possible to throw a perfect bullseye. It just has a probability of zero when mathematically analyzed due to being an infinitesimally small point. Sound like I’m making shit up? Here’s the sauce
How can an outcome both be entirely possible and have 0% probability? Fuck you, thats how. Q.E.D
You must not be playing on a soft tip board.
Key word here is “infinitesimally.” Of course if you’re calculating the odds of hitting something infinitesimally small you’re going to get 0. That’s just the nature of infinities. It is impossible to hit an infinitesimally small point, but that’s not what a human considers to be a “perfect bullseye.” There’s no paradox here.
Oh. That’s what they mean. That’s dumb lol.
Also the circumference of the dart tip is not infinitesimally small, so theres a definite chance of it overlapping the ‘perfect bullseye’ by hitting any number of nearby points.
Another lesson I the importance of significant digits, a concept I’ve had to remind many a young (and sometimes an old) engineer about. An interesting idea along similar lines is that 2 + 2 can equal 5 for significantly large values of 2.
What do you mean by significantly large
Depending on how you’re rounding, I assume. Standard rounding to whole digits states that 2.4 will round to 2 but 4.8 will round to 5. So 2.4+2.4=4.8 can be reasonably simplified to 2+2=5.
This is part of why it’s important to know what your significant digits are, because in this case the tenths digit is a bit load bearing. But, as an example, 2.43 the 3 in the hundredths digit has no bearing on our result and can be rounded or truncated.
My wife, father-in-law and I were playing a board game with my brother-in-law. In this game, we were playing as detectives who have to try to find his character, but each turn he could move in secret in one of several directions. We were a few turns in at one point and he could have been in any of dozens of places at this point. We drove him nuts by saying “he’s either in this spot or he’s not, it’s a 50-50 chance.” He kept arguing “I could be in a ton of places! It’s not a 50-50 chance!” But we just kept pretending we didn’t understand and arguing that there were only two possibilities, he’s there or he’s not, so it was clearly a 50-50 chance. He got quite angry.
Letters from Whitechapel?
Either that or you buried the lede by failing to mention something rather significant about the hidden character, and you were playing Fury of Dracula. Or my boardgamegeek-fu isn’t as strong as I hoped.
Yeah it was Letters from Whitechapel.
you know, if you watched for tells, that could tilt the probabilities… and I bet with the frustration… he was flashing tells all over the place…
Scotland Yard or Letters from Whitechapel?
I love Scotland Yard. We got it for a friend who loves detective stories. Then discovered that it’s a public transit simulator which is even better.
Public transit simulator! No way
Honestly, Letters From Whitechapel is a better design of the same concept.
For detective story games, Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective is amazing.
And for public transit games, Bus is the way to go (probably)
We bought it at goodwill on a whim knowing nothing about it. Good to know about your other suggestions. Thanks!
Lol Sherlock Holmes consulting detective is probably fun as a single player game, but we played it as a party game (cause it said you could do that) and the result is just chaos.
We got on what we were pretty sure was the right track and got into some rabbit holes, brought it back to Sherlock and he basically told us to fuck off and die and we earned negative points. I think we got one part of one of his answers and didn’t even visit most of the places that would have given us at least a few answers.
Great for a laugh though.
I would say it should be fine as a solo game if you’re into that, but better as a 2-3 player game to have someone to discuss and bounce ideas against.
I can imagine that as a party game it would be chaotic for sure!
Definitely needs the right group, and I think you can’t take the scoring too seriously, especially playing in larger groups. Pretty sure I also have never had a positive score even in a smaller group.
Yeah that’s why I say it’s good for a laugh. If a game is nearly impossible to get a decent score in, it can’t been taking itself too seriously. You’re meant to sit back and watch the master Sherlock Holmes do his thing and nail the mystery. Often it’s fun and you get some “oh yeah” moments where he points out a detail that makes a lot of clues click, but sometimes the leaps in logic are just unhinged. Also there was another mystery I remember distinctly where in order to get the correct line, you had to have some random bit of trivia knowledge about Sherlock-era English style cause it was based on someone’s hat.
Now that I write this, I bet there’s a lot of fun bits for people who have read all of the Sherlock books and “get” the logic of that world.
Letters from Whitechapel
When my son was about to be born my mother in law caught wind that we didn’t plan on circumcising (before researching it I mostly felt it was just strange to do cosmetic surgery on a newborn) but her argument was mostly parroting the 50% reduction in this that and the other disease, missing the fact that it was going from a 0.5% chance to a 0.25% chance, but of course introduced new risks by nature of being a surgery.
Naturally after looking more into it I learned just how bonkers circumcision is so I was far more cemented in my position
The fact that it is even allowed in so-called civilized countries is outrageous. In the US it common because some religious nut was obsessed with children’s masturbation.
Which is nuts, as a circumcised individual (medically necessary, my parents aren’t monsters) I masturbated A LOT as a teen.
Ever seen girl math?
“If I preload my Starbucks account with $25 and I go to Starbucks the following week, my order was free.”
“Spending money abroad doesn’t count because it’s a different currency.”
Things aren’t mathing as they should.
What makes this “girl” math?
Stupid people standing on soapboxes saying stupid shit.
Back in my day, people had to dedicate years of their life before they were given the opportunity to stand in front of hundreds of people and tell them things.
Brutha - they call it standing on a soapbox for a reason. And soapboxes havent physically been a thing for a real long time. Wait’ll you bear about “stumping”.
Anecdotally, I’ve only heard women use that sort of argument IRL. Kinda falls in the, “This widget is 80% so I’m saving money!”
Well, no, not if you didn’t have to purchase the widget in the first place.
Men are hardly immune, but in my experience it’s more so women.
Sexism 👉👉
As I recently learned,
“If I return clothes to the store (store credit), but then buy new clothes (using that store credit), those new clothes are free. (No new money spent)”
They aren’t free but they are a sunk cost so you might as well
People got this wrong about inflation as well. In 2020 there was actual deflation, and in 2021 there was very minimal inflation, meaning prices were still largely lower or similar as 2019. Then we saw 9% inflation in 2022. Total inflation in 2024 vs the 2019 benchmark was around 15%. Or 3% average per year, which is barely over the baseline. People just hear 9% inflation, completely missing the fact that this was a YoY number relative to the Trump recession.
Drag doesn’t know exactly what the problem is, but the official inflation figures cannot be right. Housing is so much more expensive. Food is more expensive. And it’s not 9% more expensive. Drag knows they say the math takes into account the price of rent, but they’ve gotta be lying somehow. It’s impossible that the cost of living is rising so much faster than inflation. Those should be the same. If they’re not the same, someone’s math is wrong.
I keep track of my grocery bills going on 10 years now and 14-15% is spot on for what I buy.
Housing is more than 15% more expensive
It may as well be accounted in the inflation, but with a lower weight. Usually the institution responsible for calculation of the inflation will publish the methodology so one can see for emselve, real perceived inflation may be higher or even lower depending on what your consumption profile is.
Won’t your consumption profile necessarily change if rent is raised and you have to buy fewer luxuries? Do the calculations take that into account?
And then there was that bogus article that said Argentina had lowered it’s inflation to 2% and you find out in the article that’s monthly inflation and the yearly figure was like 190%.
well it’s ambiguous. Its also a sloppy way of expressing an increase by 80 percentage points.
That’s not sloppy, that’s simply wrong
Fair enough, I’m inclined to agree. It’s a relatively common error though, still leaving it ambiguous outside of circles where you expect people to express themselves with mathematical precision.
So you’re telling me there’s a chance?
I think it’s ambiguous and the 90% actually makes more sense. If you increase something by 5m you are taking the original value and adding 5m to it. For multiplication you should probably avoid the word increase and say scaled by instead. 10% scaled by 180% is 18%.
It’s really pretty simple - if something increases by 80%, you add 80% of whatever it already is… one dollar becomes $1.80… one percent becomes 1.8 percent.
Most people don’t understand it because they’ve seen it done wrong so often, the wrong way seems right.
I’m quite willing to bet that 70% of the population has no clue that percentages, fractions, and decimals are the same thing.
That’s about 60% more than expected
You mean 38 percent points higher ?
I think you can increase that by about 7.5/10%
Is that 7.5 percent or 7.5 percentage points though? :/
Then odds show up to the party and upend everything we thought we understood.
I play video games; I need to know if the percentage is additive or multiplicative.
“+100%” looks pretty good until you see what “×25%” actually gives you.
×25% gives you 1/4 the original value, whereas +100% is double the original value, let’s say 8/4 to keep it consistent. ×125% (in case a 1 is missing) is still only 5/4 the original value.
Is there a typo in your comment?
In video games they commonly use that to mean they are multiplying by 25. We know it’s not correct in stats. This is why game wikis commonly put the actual formula for things rather than the tooltip the developers wrote.
Games use x25% or x25? Technically the first divides the score by 4.
We are aware of what it actually does mathematically. Please re-read what I wrote.
I was asking for clarification. Do many games really add the % to x25?
Yes. Just off the top of my head, I see any kind of Diablo-like game doing it a lot. Shows everything as a percentage, but some items are just adding that number (not a percentage) or multiplying the number (also not a percentage). It’s like they just treat the % as meaning “alters number in mysterious ways.”
Warframe has a mod card will say like +200% but you don’t want that one, because it’s adding, while there is a multiplying one that will say +4, and it’s just multiplying it by 4 instead of the +200% which is only adding twice as much to the base value. If you had 100, the +200% thing gives 300. But the +4 is 400. And the way this is displayed in the game does not make sense so you’ll always think the +200% is better unless you check the wiki (or put it on your gun and play around with it).
Biggest lie in a game’s tooltip/description of an item was how the formula for Armor Piercing rounds in Fallout 1 and 2 was bad, so instead of being stronger than regular rounds, they were weaker.
I feel they might’ve left something out. If you’re at base value still an additive 100% increase (1+1=2) is better than a multiplicative 25% (1×1.25=1.25) increase but in games where bonuses stack another additive 100% increase would raise the effective value by 50% instead (1+1+1=3) whereas another multiplicative 25% would still raise the total by that much (1×1.25×1.25=1.56) so if you’re stacking a lot of bonuses, eventually the multplicative ones are more effective. As for how many steps it would take to be equal in our example… 1+1×X=1×1.25^X I’m not gonna do this in my bed on my phone but that equation should already tell you that the right side grows faster when X -> infinity
It’ll become greater after 12 applications:
- For 11 times 1.25¹¹ ≈ 11.64 < 12 = 1+ 1×11
- For 12 times 1.25¹² ≈ 14.55 > 13 = 1 + 1×12
There’s no need for a precise solution since it’s integers anyway.
Why lying with maths is so easy, the average person, even in developed countries is practically innumerate (massive hyperbole, but the fact lying with numbers is easy, still stands)
Wrong: I had a 1% chance, and I doubled my chances. Now my chances are 101%.
Right: I had a 1% chance, and I doubled my chances. Now my chances are 2%.
Wrighongt: I had a 1% chance, and I doubled my chances. Now my chances are 3%, because I’m a lucky person.
Sleep deprived fraction lover: I had a 1% chance, and I doubled my chances. Now due to 1/100 * 1/100 I chances are 0.0001%.
