Percentages over 100

[piratefish]

Can any please explain to me the point of a system that uses values of over 100%?

For instance, infrastructure; just how exactly does one improve infrastructure to 200%? And if 200% simply means twice the infrastructure as 100%, what the heck does 100% represent then? (Certainly not 100% of the province's potential infrastructure development - since one can improve it to 200%).

It reminds me of one of the great scenes from This Is Spinal Tap where the band is being interviewed, and they point out that their amps go "up to eleven!" When the interviewer asks the obvious "Why not just make 10 louder?" (In other words, why do you need to introduce a new increment?), the band looks confused and says "No...but ours go up to eleven."

So is that why infra of 200% is available, and why relations with another country can reach 200 (whatever 200 represents...200 "warm fuzzies", perhaps)?

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Can any please explain to me the point of a system that uses values of over 100%?

For instance, infrastructure; just how exactly does one improve infrastructure to 200%? And if 200% simply means twice the infrastructure as 100%, what the heck does 100% represent then? (Certainly not 100% of the province's potential infrastructure development - since one can improve it to 200%).

It reminds me of one of the great scenes from This Is Spinal Tap where the band is being interviewed, and they point out that their amps go "up to eleven!" When the interviewer asks the obvious "Why not just make 10 louder?" (In other words, why do you need to introduce a new increment?), the band looks confused and says "No...but ours go up to eleven."

So is that why infra of 200% is available, and why relations with another country can reach 200 (whatever 200 represents...200 "warm fuzzies", perhaps)?

For infrastructure consider 100 to be the point where there are no penalties for anything that happens in the province. Any value below 100 would be a penalty and anything above 100 would be a bonus. Do not think of it as 100% is the best that it could be, in fact do not think of it as a percentage, but a measure of how effect the province is at doing things. This way as you go up on the infrastructure everything in the province is more effective. When you mouse over a resource in a province it shows you the effectiveness of the province relative to the base value of the resource. In general infrastructure less then 100 will use less then the base value of the resource (these being, metal, energy, oil, rares, industry). Anything over 100 will see a bonus or a value over the base value of the resource.

NOTE: you will see values greater then base resource even if infrastructure is less then 100 as Peace time and Industry tech also provide bonuses equal to there value as percent. This value can also be negative which would then be applied as a penalty.

As for relations it is just a measure of how well they like you, in the form of a range from -200 to 200, with -200 being bad and 200 being good.

Hope this helps.

 

[piratefish]

That still doesn't explain research speed, organization, morale, ESE, GDE, political relations, and a whole host of percentages above 100 in the Overview screen.

"No...ours go up to eleven!"

 

[Jacabon]

That still doesn't explain research speed, organization, morale, ESE, GDE, political relations, and a whole host of percentages above 100 in the Overview screen.

"No...ours go up to eleven!"

its pretty much the same with all those. Where 100% is the point of no bonus or no penalty. i ma pretty sure political relations isn;t a percentage, although i could be wrong.

 

[JRHINDO]

Just be happy that you cant reach a power level over 9000%

 

[Klausewitz]

Just be happy that you cant reach a power level over 9000%

You can do that?

 

[JRHINDO]

You can do that?

hahah yes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17zNW-wz35E&feature=related

 

[piratefish]

No...ours go up to eleven!

 

[piratefish]

What's so wrong with a scale of 1 to 100? All else runs counter to convention.

 

[Sillsallad]

Do not think of it as 100% is the best that it could be, in fact do not think of it as a percentage, but a measure of how effect the province is at doing things.

@Piratefish
You can quote Spinal Tap as much as you want but we all know percentage isn't used in a correct way here, does it really matter that much? It's not a percentage in a mathematical sense, you can make the same argument about every feature that raises your efficiency with a certain percentage. Everyone knows that the new number should rely on what you had before the upgrade but it doesn't. If you have 10% efficiency and change to a diplomat with a 10% bonus you should get a total of 11%, right? Well, you don't, you get 20% and that's as you know is a 100% increase.
BTW, in math it's absolutely ok to calculate with percentages above 100%, it's not uncommon and absolutely necessary in statistics for example. It's in other words no "counter to convention".

 

[piratefish]

Really? How does one become 110% efficient?

I can understand increases of 110% to a whole number, but not 110% of a finite attribute.

In other words, how can one be 110% of their current weight? If they weigh 100 kg, 100% of their weight is 100 kg. 110% of their weight would be a 110 kg object, but could not be their own weight, else they would weigh 110 kg and that would then be their new 100%.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that percentages are ratios, and only 2 separate attributes can truly have one be 110% of the other. If it were only one attribute, 110% would become the new 100%.

That's why someone who says "I will give it 110% effort" is really spouting nonsense in its truest meaning of the word. 100% is always a maximum, because as soon as you raise the maximum by any interger, the ratio also changes with it and 100% is still the new maximum!

Again, it's belaboring the obvious, but 100% is the maximum of anything - 110% or 120% or 130% is merely an incremental change expressed as a ratio of the original value.

Perhaps what you've been alluding to is what is referred to as an index, which is completely different from the concept of ratios. Then, with an index, 100 would be a baseline value used for comparison between multiple expressions of the same attribute. But if this is the case, then what is the index for say, international relations as expressed in the game? And which country (or average of a select block of countries) is this index based upon? An index is meaningless without a reference point, and a scale of -200 to 200 seems a bit arbitrary (besides, -200 of what? warm fuzzies?). As does organization and morale of 110. I mean, a 110 what? Pretty meaningless - its obviously not a %, so what then is the base index?

And how does one become 110% organized?

 

[Klausewitz]

You are really bored, aren't you?

 

[Sillsallad]

Perhaps what you've been alluding to is what is referred to as an index, which is completely different from the concept of ratios. Then, with an index, 100 would be a baseline value used for comparison between multiple expressions of the same attribute.

Ah, so you actually do understand, you are just a troll, why didn't you say so?

 

[piratefish]

How amusing, ad hominem attacks. What is this, the fifth grade?

Clearly the scores of greater than 100% ARE NOT an index system. For example, the Overview page is full of percentages ranging well over 100%. To me, this makes very little sense (kind of like Spinal Tap endowing their amps with a setting of eleven). Why the need to go over 100%? How can, say, my radar station efficiency be greater than 100%? And is my 100% better, the same as, or worse than another nation's 100%?

Also, I am simply asking why all these random scales on other things, like the diplomatic relations, or GDE, etc? If 100 is not the limit, then what is? Just seems a little willy nilly to me is all. Consistency would be nice, or at least some sort of scale or method of measurement to which one can relate.

What does 120% organization mean anyway? 120% more organized than the 1934 Polish infantry III? 120% more organized than your troops were on the third Tuesday of February? 120% of what? It would be much more intuitive and easier to understand if it were on a uniform scale of 1 to 100. Then there could be meaningful comparisons between various units and ambiguity would be eliminated.

 

[piratefish]

You are really bored, aren't you?

Klausewitz...sometimes, yes I am. But this particular aspect of the game has always baffled/annoyed me. Call it a pet peeve. I genuinely do not understand the need to adopt a system that opens the door for so much ambiguity in comparisons. A simple 1 to 100 scale where a 70 is a 70 or an 85.3 is an 85.3, etc. seems to me to be much clearer and far more straightforward.

As posted above, if a score is currently 10% in a given attribute and a minister grants a bonus of 10%, one would logically expect the new value to be 11% But not so with HoI! It becomes 20% as though you were adding together whole numbers and not ratios. But even this claim does not always hold true. If I get a 10% increase to my oil supply of daily production, and my daily production is 11.1, wouldn't one expect to see 1.1 "oil" added to his supply? I've never seen it work like that yet.

Sure makes interpreting what the various presentages and measurements actually represent much more difficult. Give me a simple, understandable 1 to 100 any day, where my 23.1 is identical to your 23.1.

 

[Jacabon]

Its like it is simply so that when you do research or build something that increases its effectiveness/efficiency you don't need to scale every other countries whatever it is. ok so you just researched plus 10% radar efficiency so now its 110%. No wait, we will make it 100 and make everyone else's 100, 90.909090909090. Now everytime you research something, you really don't want to have to do 200 calculations to every nation.

Sure makes interpreting what the various presentages and measurements actually represent much more difficult. Give me a simple, understandable 1 to 100 any day, where my 23.1 is identical to your 23.1.

how does it make it more difficult? someone who has 23.1% ground attack efficiency is the same as the next countries. When county A researches +5% efficiency he is at 28.1. that makes his ground attack 21.64% better.

Your really trying hard to make an issue where there obviously isn't one.

 

[piratefish]

Your really trying hard to make an issue where there obviously isn't one.

Is the point really that difiicult to understand?

I am not suggesting the ridiculous notion that all other countries' values need to be recalculated. What I am saying (and this seems to be the part that loses everyone so far) is that a simple sacle of 1 to 100 would be much easier to understand/grasp.

And here is why: as it was pointed out above, sometimes a 10% bonus really ends up being a 100% bonus (where your original score was 10% and you get a 10% bonus - in all of the math classes I have ever taken, 10% of 10% is 1%, therefore the new score should be 11% but it ends up being 20% - which is really a 100% increase), but other times a percent is treated like a percent and not a whole number and is added correctly (where you would actually end up at 11% instead of 20% in the example above).

To me, this is arbitrary, random, and confusing (it is not consistently applied). And are you 100% sure that Germany's 140% is the same as South Africa's 140%? Things I have seen in the game suggest otherwise (see above bonus example).

Instead of giving a score at or near 100% to start with, scale it back. Rather than showing a unit attacking at 145% effectiveness (145% of your effectiveness, of their effectiveness last Tuesday, of Polands 3rd Infrantry Division of 1934????), why not show that they are fighting at, say 85% of their maximum potential (bonuses and modifiers would be applied like true percenatges and not added like whole numbers to yield something ridiculous and meaningless like 145%).

Is it really that hard to understand, or do you just not care/don't want to see it? It looks like Sillsallad is the only one who has grasped the concept so far. At least he can see it, even if he doesn't think it is that big of a deal.

I never said it was the most important aspect of the game (because it isn't - not even close). This started out to be a question as to why things could not be simplified a little bit to remove any ambiguity in interpreting the numbers (and believe me, the ambiguity exsists just by virtue of reading the comments in this thread, whether the individual realizes it or not), but it turned into a thread of misunderstanding and missing the point. Is it really that difficult to see what I am getting at? I would have to say yes based on some of the glassy-eyed responses.

 

[piratefish]

Its like it is simply so that when you do research or build something that increases its effectiveness/efficiency you don't need to scale every other countries whatever it is. ok so you just researched plus 10% radar efficiency so now its 110%. No wait, we will make it 100 and make everyone else's 100, 90.909090909090. Now everytime you research something, you really don't want to have to do 200 calculations to every nation.

This is precisely my point...if radar staion efficiency is already at 100%, how can you push it further? If my car tops out at 180 mph and I am traveling at my car's maximum speed, how can I drive at 110% of it's max? It cannot go faster than 180!

It seems that the radar station truly wasn't at 100% if there was room for improvment...it was really at 90% or 85%, or something less than 100%.

So what's the limit? 9,000% like suggested above? Starts going beyond meaningless straight to ridiculous. If 100% is not the limit, then what does 145% represent, and how close is that to reaching ultimate potential?

Oh, and by the way...the whole idea of a 10% bonus when you are already at 99% is an excellent example of a real world concept (and well documented phenomenon) known as the law of diminishing returns. When you approach maximum effectiveness or efficiency, any additional effort will give you exponentially less bang for your buck. Hence, a 10% bonus at 99% will net you a whopping 0.99% increase! And another 10% after thatwould not even be a tenth of a percent.

And what about new technology that vastly increases capabilities when you are already at 99.9999%? Well, that's called obsolescense, and suddenly the old standard simply cannot measure up. This would be very easy to implement in terms of the game. A truly new advancement to the next level of technology in a given field would automatically reduce the current effectiveness of anyone else using the newly outdated technology.

For example, if your decimetric radar staion is operating at 90% effectiveness (90% of the possible maximum for ANY radar station), and suddenly another nation developes centimetric technology - BAM! your radar efficiency is cut in half (assuming the new technology is twice as efficient/accurate/whatever); you're now at 45%! Why? Because there is a new standard in radar tehnology that puts yours at a serious disadvantage. (not to mean that suddenly your radar stations will be half as likely to detct planes as it was just the previous day, it just means that the new technology can do it twice as accurately and/or from twice the distance).

 

[Sillsallad]

I disagree with your solutions because they would implement a linear deterministic evolution in technology. You argue amongst other things that 100% is an absolute number, I ask, what is 100% of a car? a tank? a doctrine? Even if the usage of percent describing development ingame is wrong in strict mathematical terms I believe it does the job quite good. It's not hard to understand or calculate once you grasp the additional system. Playing Germany I usually end up with about 350% research speed in the late 1940's. It's perfectly clear that it tells me my research is 3.5 times as fast as it was when I had 100% research speed. I can easily calculate the new numbers to my old by simply adding them. 145% means 1.45 times as effective as 100%, just as it does in the real world when people in different fields are describing development with percentages way higher than the "absolute" 100%. If you have seen differences between units for example indicating that those numbers does not represent the same quality I think you have the burden of proof and I would like to see an example of that before we continue to argue about it because there are so many factors to consider before you can make that comparisment.

To answer my own question, there is no 100% of a car, ambush, offensive doctrine or anything else in the game or in the real world, so that 100% would be as abstract as the numbers you disagree with.

 

[piratefish]

I would have to disagree that there is no 100% of anything. If we are strictly referring to physical objects, then in the purest sense of 100%, nothing is 100%. But for scores and abstract values (such as the value of currency, indecies, game values, etc.) there most certainly is 100%.

I am well aware of real world examples of more than 100%. I work in finance and we constantly look at chnages in balances and values in just such a manner.

And I get that research speed of 350% (which, I find amazing...how to achieve that could be a thread all on its own) is a way of stating that my research speed is 3.5 times faster than when I started.

However, what I am referring to distills to the following two points:

1) There is no consistency. One example is the very one you gave in an earlier post, when a percent is treated like a whole number when summing in one instance, and yet in another (like increases to stockpiles) they are summed correctly as a percentage. And,

2) How do you know that 100% is a baseline for ALL nations? Do you know that, say, Polands 100% efficiency, research speed, etc. is on par with Germany's or the UK? Or is it a value specific to Poland and other nations have their own baselines? Expressing an individual nation's various progress as a ratio of 1 does not mean that it is a universal baseline by any means. In my profession, when I make that assumption, millions can be lost. Again, some sort of whole value would be much more helpful for comparisons. For instance, if I simply told you that stock A increased in price 115%, while stock B increased only 40%, which one truly made you more money? It would help to know the starting value of each. And assuming they were both the same would be quite naive.

There is nothing in the game to indicate whether or not the percenatges used are an expression of a universal base value, or an individual nation's base value. This creates the ambiguity to which I am referring, making the basis for comparisons difficult. In the real world, I would never act on information this vague, not unless I wanted to find myself out of a job after hosing my firm for millions.

Again, if values were ALL expressed on a scale of 1 to 100, there would be no doubt at all (no room for ambiguity or supposition) on where one stands in relation to others. The only thing 145% tells me now is that my value is 0.45 times greater than it was when I was at 1 (again, whatever 1 represents, which really is a separate issue).

And, my approach to the introduction of new technology in no way dictates a "linear deterministic evolution in technology". At least no more than any other mathematical model used in programming would (the current approach is just as much so). But that is kind of a limitation when simulating real life in computer based games.

Having said all of this, I completely see your point, and I understand it. As I have said all along, this is something more of a personal preference of mine that has bugged me since first picking up HoI over 6 years ago. Probably has a lot to do with the meticulous nature of the profession I have been in for the past 12 years...I would seriously mistrust the competency of any finance professional who used a report that did not clearly give a meaningful basis of comparison.

But, for being more about a personal preference and a pet peeve aimed at clarification and commiseration from similar souls, it has turned into quite the thread. Evidently this particular aspect is far more important than I thought. If it truly were no big deal to everyone who has posted defending it (the current system), why bother doing so at all? Just ignore an anal-retentive numbers cruncher, or more politely, allow him his indulgence.

I know I am taking this aspect of the game far more seriously than it merits and that in the grand scheme it is not significant, but how can an alcoholic say "no" to a nice tall glass of icy cold beer on a hot day?

I have really enjoyed the comments (except the unnecessary personal attacks), and I have learned and gained some clarification. Dialogue is often instrumental in bringing around my way of thinking, or at least helping me to accept things for the way they are. It has been somewhat cathartic.