Unit Cost Equation

[Scott Hebert]

@BigDaddy: Theoretically, since the path costs have been given by Illwinter, they really shouldn't be that hard to remove from the equation, right? Would you say that Sushiboat's split-off of Mage Commanders would mean that Mage Commanders have different priorities?

[BigDaddy]

Exactly.

[Scott Hebert]

What would happen if you subtracted the path cost for each mage, and then recalculated? Do you think you would find the same occurrence?

Also, were the calculations made with equipment/path bonuses, or with just the base stats?

[BigDaddy]

I assume he already took out the path cost, but I don't know. In any case, because the path costs may have differed from the standards of illwinter due to balancing the path cost need to be run in a model. I ASSUME he didn't count equipment (it costs resources). We need him to tell us.

On the spreadsheet... if you make an unusually strong or weak unit the cost will definetely be off. It's for "typical" units.

Sushiboat, can you use Absolute value on Str and HP to force Size to be negative(with your software)?

When you update I'll change the spreadsheet that bears your screen name.

[sushiboat]

I look forward to adding magic paths. However, it would not surprise me if they turn out to be correlated with the stats already in -- especially precision, magic resistance, and magic leadership. The number of total path levels should be highly correlated with magic leadership. Levels in death and blood paths will be highly correlated with undead leadership. Fire magic adds to attack skill, and so on. What may happen is that the path levels stay in the final equation, other stats come out, and overall variance explained is bumped up only a little. Chipping away at the last 20% of the variance will be tough, I bet.

[BigDaddy]

To repeat myself for your convenience:

-Remove outlier units that are artificially extra efficient to hire.

-Add magic paths to mage units.

These two will greatly increase your accuracy.

-I've updated the speadsheet to be NONCRAPPY.

-Look at your program options, and see if you can for HP and Str to be positive

[sushiboat]

BigDaddy said:
I assume he already took out the path cost, but I don't know. In any case, because the path costs may have differed from the standards of illwinter due to balancing the path cost need to be run in a model. I ASSUME he didn't count equipment (it costs resources). We need him to tell us.

I didn't include equipment. I am not sure what you mean about path cost. I have not analyzed path levels (e.g., level 3 in death magic) yet. The spreadsheet info on magic paths still needs to be parsed and separated into different columns.

Sushiboat, can you use Absolute value on Str and HP to force Size to be negative(with your software)?

I don't understand what you are requesting. I think that all units already have non-negative Strength and HP values, so running them through an absolute value function wouldn't change those numbers. Are you talking about the coefficients?

[Evil Dave]

sushiboat said:
If I remember correctly, size, HP, and strength are highly correlated with each other, so having more than one in the equation makes interpretation tricky.

Highly-correlated inputs do bad things to regression models. You might try dropping one or two of them to see if it gives more sensible coefficients on the one or two left. Dropping them might even improve the R-squared, tho there's not much room to grow.

Out of curiosity, what do the p-values for the individual regressors look like?

[Scott Hebert]

sushiboat said:
I look forward to adding magic paths. However, it would not surprise me if they turn out to be correlated with the stats already in -- especially precision, magic resistance, and magic leadership. The number of total path levels should be highly correlated with magic leadership. Levels in death and blood paths will be highly correlated with undead leadership. Fire magic adds to attack skill, and so on. What may happen is that the path levels stay in the final equation, other stats come out, and overall variance explained is bumped up only a little. Chipping away at the last 20% of the variance will be tough, I bet.

Hmm. Well, here's the thing. If you look at total Magic leadership (including magic path additions), wouldn't that tend to overvalue Astral magic? Similar with Undead Leadership, etc.

I would think that, since we ostensibly have what the path costs should be for a given configuration (I've worked these all out, including full randoms, if you'd like it), shouldn't you remove that from consideration before running your analysis?

That done, wouldn't you gain a clearer picture of how to value the stats?

What I'm getting at is perhaps by working together (using my guesses and your regression analysis), we might be able to come up with a value for any given stat configuration, and then just 'plug in' the rest of the information.

Unfortunately, I don't very much at all about regression testing, so it's hard for me to grasp much of the jargon.

[BigDaddy]

Sushiboat, can you use Absolute value on Str and HP to force Size to be negative(with your software)?

I don't understand what you are requesting. I think that all units already have non-negative Strength and HP values, so running them through an absolute value function wouldn't change those numbers. Are you talking about the coefficients?

[/quote]

Yes, I'm talking about the coefficients. They really would do better as positives. I thought if you could force absolute value on them, then it would force Size to be negative. You also may get this result by changing the order. To some extent I agree with Evil Dave, except that we are talking about a correlation issue, even though Size and HP are very different. I would recommend making a model for human sized units IF you where going to cut size out. Otherwise, it is important enough to leave in. Besides, I assume it makes your model more accurate.