Got home, got manual, got disappointed!

[Chazar]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Chance of hitting a given square:
(1-(1-((2+prec)/(2+prec+1.5*range))))*(1-(prec/100)^2))*(prec/100)^.2

Are you sure that the second 2 is really a 2 and not a .2? And I guess the weapon's basic range is missing somewhere...

No, honestly, I agree. I just had to realize this after reading too much within this forum! Its just my nature as a mathematician which makes me wonder about the all these probabilities...

[Gateway103]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Chance of hitting a given square:

(1-(1-((2+prec)/(2+prec+1.5*range))))*(1-(prec/100)^2))*(prec/100)^.2

Doesn't it look about like that to you? You have to actually watch the battle replays to get a good feel for the exact equations, not just look at the results...

What a complicated formula... wait, it simplifies to ((2+prec)/(2+prec+1.5*range))*(1-(prec/100)^2))*(prec/100)^.2 , as the two 1's are redundant... wait a minute, there is one extra ) after the squared turn, was that a typo or something else (could explain the redudant 1's)

Btw, what is the highest possible precision in game short of prec100 spells? Btw, if I were to intepret the extra ) as a simple typo and ignore it, then the formula says maximum probabilty is at prec 40~50 (depends on Range), and actually starts to drop after that (prec100 has zilch ^_^) A result of regression fitting perhaps, albeit intriguing.

-Gateway103

[ March 16, 2004, 07:42: Message edited by: Gateway103 ]

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Gateway103:
Btw, what is the highest possible precision in game short of prec100 spells? Btw, if I were to intepret the extra ) as a simple typo and ignore it, then the formula says maximum probabilty is at prec 40~50 (depends on Range), and actually starts to drop after that (prec100 has zilch ^_^) A result of regression fitting perhaps, albeit intriguing.

A precision of 40 to 50 is pretty insanely accurate. I don't think you find precision that good in the game, normally. The fact that it drops after that by the formula given is surely an artifact of regression fitting, which is the only feasible way that Cherry could possibly have derived such a convoluted formula. It's almost certainly not *THE* formula used in the code, but it's likely a good enough approximation for all reasonable values of precision.

[PDF]

The formula looks faulty, here are some tabular results : prec 10 has a nearly flat hit chance regardless of range, prec 50 is worse than 20..


PREC
RANGE 5 10 15 20 50 99
1 45.12% 59.13% 63.57% 66.69% 64.12% 1.97%
5 8.36% 34.18% 30.44% 31.34% 31.05% 14.72%
10 2.96% 31.52% 26.04% 27.01% 26.95% 22.83%
20 1.25% 31.35% 25.18% 26.27% 26.26% 25.18%
50 0.43% 31.48% 24.98% 26.14% 26.14% 25.73%

[Saber Cherry]

Oh, I should mention that I just made that up. Ha, ha! I didn't really think anyone would take it seriously...

Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

[Gateway103]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Oh, I should mention that I just made that up. Ha, ha! I didn't really think anyone would take it seriously...

Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

What! And we trusted you!!!

That'll teach us to trust the "reputable" Saber Cherry

-Gateway103

Yes Cherrypie, you must not be fallable.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
Finding the formula would be tough, since it doesn't even exist in the game code - the precision formula just tells the projectile where to land; it does not give it a probability of hitting a given square.

Not really. If knew what that formula WAS, then the probability of it hitting a given square is the probability that the randomly selected square it will land in is the target square.

Even if you didn't know what the formula is, you could probably approximate it by the regression sampling people THOUGHT you might have done. What other data did you blatantly falsify as well?

[Zurai]

Originally posted by Norfleet:
What other data did you blatantly falsify as well?

Not sure I can output enough rolleyes smileys for that statement. Cherry made a joke that was extremely obvious once you LOOKED at the formula, and you accuse him of falsifying stuff in his other, very valuable to the community, works? Get off your damn high horse man. It was a joke. J-O-K-E.

[Chazar]

Well, in addition, when I asked about a formula, I was rather referring to the mechanics used to determine the divergence from the target square, not for a closed formula...

I assume that the "mechanics" might be something like for every square that the projectile flies, there is a chance based on weather (strom/rain/snow), precision and basic weapon range whether the projectile goes astray from its designated course a bit...

But leaving this aside, my real problem is that I'm still lacking a feel for precision-values in relation to range, especially when it comes to mages that won't shoot they lightning bolts in such a mass like archers. It just seems to me that scripting spells that affect only a single square is almost useless without wind-guide, aim, eye of precision, etc. against foes that are not packed densely on the field...