Doubling and skills

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Bryan J. Maloney (jacobus@sonata.cc.purdue.edu)
Date: Thu 03 Feb 1994 - 04:32:10 EET

Okay, I've read Piaget, I've read Carnegie, and I've read other
experts on learning and cognitive science. None of them say that
certain skills are "twice" as hard to learn or "twice" as easy.

What is the justification for requiring that an easy skill advance
twice as fast as a normal skill and that advance twice as fast as
a hard skill? Upon what basis is this decision adhered to?
In other words, I would like to understand the reasoning behind
this ruling.

PS: 1d3, by the way is NOT 1/2 of 1d6 if one looks at averages.

The average value of 1d3 is 2
The average value of 1d6 is 3.5

This makes hard skills 1.75 times as hard as medium skills to advance.
Now, let us suppose that we do adopt 2d4 as the advance rate for easy
skills. The average of 2d4 is 5. This gives a ratio of 10/7 vs. medium
skills. Dividing 3.5 by 10/7 gives a result of 2.45, which would
translate to 1d4. BUT, multiplying 3.5 times 1.75 gives a result of 6.175,
which is either 2d4+1 or 2d6-1. If you want to preserve the ratio, at least
honestly preserve it.

Why all the math? Just to cast a little shadow on Oliver's assertion that
a certain special sitiation is violated by using 1d3/1d6/2d4.


0,,

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:33:50 EEST